1998 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to take credit in RG 23A Part II against cancelled Gate Passes.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing castings under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff, faced proceedings due to taking credit against cancelled Gate Passes. The Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the credit in RG 23A Part II, citing Rule 173G(2)(vii) which allows credit in PLA but not in RG 23A Part II for cancelled gate passes. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of a specific provision for recrediting in RG 23A Part II.

Shri Mathias argued that without a prescribed procedure for recredit in RG 23A Part II, the appellants cannot be faulted for taking credit on their own. Referring to a Tribunal decision, he highlighted that actions imposing liability should be clearly authorized by law when the assessee acts in good faith. On the other hand, Shri Ramtake contended that Rule 173G(2) only covers credit in PLA for cancelled gate passes, lacking a provision for RG 23A Part II.

The Tribunal considered the matter solely concerning the credit in RG 23A Part II. While Rule 173G(2)(vii) addresses credit in PLA, Rule 173G(1) mentions RG 23 alongside PLA for procedures under Rule 173K. The Collector (Appeals) noted the absence of RG 23 in Rule 173G(1) but recognized the need for adjustments in credit accounts, as seen in Rule 57E for Modvat credit. Given the appellants' intimation of cancelled gate passes, akin to adjustments in Modvat credit, and the absence of a specific provision against the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, permitting the credit in RG 23A Part II.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, allowing them to take credit of the disputed amount in their RG 23A Part II account due to the absence of a specific provision in the statute against them.