2001 (2) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules post-amendment.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the extension of time under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Iron and Steel products, sent materials to job workers under Rule 57F(4) but failed to bring them back within 60 days. They sought an extension beyond 60 days, which was declined post-amendment to Rule 57F. The appellants argued that the amendment should not apply retroactively, citing precedents like the case of Universal Drinks Private Ltd. v. Union of India. The Revenue, however, relied on the decision in M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, asserting that the amendment applies from the date of application for extension.

The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Rule 57F withdrew the Assistant Commissioner's power to extend the period for goods sent to job workers. The appellants' reliance on precedents was distinguished, with the Tribunal emphasizing the retrospective application of amendments, as seen in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. The Tribunal also highlighted the decision in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Sarabhai Chemcials, where the period of limitation was found to be applicable as per the law on the date of the claim. In the present case, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's argument, following the decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys, which allowed credit within six months from the issuance of duty paying documents, even for documents pre-amendment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the applicability of the amendment to Rule 57F and the precedent set by the Larger Bench's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment clarifies the issues surrounding the extension of time under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules post-amendment, highlighting the conflicting arguments presented by the appellants and the Revenue, and ultimately, the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and the retrospective application of amendments in such cases.