2000 (3) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 57G and Rule 57H regarding Modvat credit eligibility beyond six months.
- Applicability of Rule 57G to cases covered by Rule 57H.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal involved a dispute over Modvat credit eligibility under Rule 57H despite the documents being issued beyond six months. The Asstt. Commissioner applied Rule 57G to disallow the credit, but the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found no such restriction in Rule 57H. The Revenue contested this decision, arguing that Rule 57G should apply to the case.

Issue 2: The main argument revolved around the interpretation of Rule 57G and Rule 57H in the context of Modvat credit claims. The Department contended that Rule 57G prohibits taking credit on documents issued over six months prior, whereas the respondents relied on the non-obstante clause in Rule 57H to assert that Rule 57G does not apply to cases under Rule 57H.

The respondents cited the Tribunal's decision in Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, emphasizing that Rule 57H overrides Rule 57G. They also referenced judgments in Cadbury India v. C.C.E., Pune and M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut to support their position that Rule 57G cannot be invoked for claims under Rule 57H.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal analyzed Rule 57H as a transitional rule exempting it from Rule 57G's restrictions. Citing the precedent in Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the decision that Rule 57G does not apply to claims under Rule 57H. The Tribunal found no legal flaw in the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the entitlement to Modvat credit under Rule 57H despite the documents being issued beyond six months.