Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1997 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (8) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Time limitation for recovery of duty credit availed without proper documents. 2. Compliance with Rule 56A requirements for availing proforma credit. 3. Provisional character of credit taken pending proof of duty payment. Analysis: 1. The case involves the recovery of duty credit by the Revenue due to the absence of proper duty paying documents. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, but the lower appellate authority set it aside as time-barred. The Tribunal examined the issue of time limitation under Rule 56A and upheld the lower authority's decision, stating that the extended period of limitation was not applicable to the Department in this case. 2. The disagreement arose regarding the compliance with Rule 56A requirements for availing proforma credit. The Vice President opined that the credit was provisional and subject to producing proof of duty payment. However, Member (J) held that the credit availed without proper documents cannot be considered provisional under Rule 56A. The Tribunal agreed with Member (J) and emphasized the need for compliance with the substantive provisions for claiming benefit under Rule 56A. 3. The provisional nature of the credit taken pending proof of duty payment was a crucial aspect of the case. The Vice President viewed the credit as provisional, subject to fulfilling the officer's direction to provide proof of payment. In contrast, Member (J) highlighted that the department did not proceed under Rule 56A(2A) for provisional credit treatment. The Tribunal concurred with Member (J) that the recovery must adhere to Rule 56A(5), which mandates a time limit of six months for such cases. In the final order, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the majority opinion, which aligned with Member (J)'s interpretation of Rule 56A and the time limitation for duty credit recovery. The case underscores the importance of complying with procedural and substantive requirements for availing duty credits under the Central Excise Rules.
|