9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector (Appeals), while upholding the order, modifJed ttie same in respect of personal penalty, which he had set aside. 2. The appellant manufactured Aluminium conductors and double paper covered aluminium strips falling under Heading 8544.02 of Central Excise Tariff of 1985. The raw material is aluminium rods. The company had been availing thejacility of proforma credit under Rule 56A, They opted for MQDVAT Scheme, whichcame into being with effect from 1.3.1986. The officers found on a visit tothe factory that during the period from 1.3.1986 to 31.7.1986 the company had.availed.o-edjt of dutyaigounting to Rs.,62,979.01 under Rule 56A in respect of aluminium rods and this firocedure was objected to on the ground that both profotma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be thrust on him. The appellants in this case have chosen to pay duty on the goods, and under Rule 57B read with para 5 of Notification No. 175/86,, they were eligible to take credjt at normal rate, on the ground that it was open to the assessee whether to avail of the exemption or not. As regards the simultaneous availing of proforma credit facility and MODVAT benefit;1the learned Consultant submitted that a harmonious construction of sub-rule (8) and sub-rufe (9) of Rule 56A is called for. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A should not have been considered in isolation from sub-rule (8) thereof. This sub-rule was amended by same Notification under sub-rule (9) was inserted viz. Notification 176/86, dated 1.3.1986 from which it could be seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y clear and lays down that nothing contained in this rule shall apply to a manufacturer availing of the credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule SPA. Therefore, it is clear that the Rule 56A(9) would control Rule 56A(8). It is unambiguous that a manufacturer opting for MODVAT was not eligible for proforma credit. But it is seen that a change In the basis of eligibility was effected on and after 15. 4.1987 by the issue of Notification 117/87, dated 15.4.1987, which brought about the changes in the MODVAT Rules and also Rule 56A. Sub-rule(9) of Rule 56A was substituted. Before amendment sub-rule (9) read nothing contained in this rule shall apply to a manufacturer availing of the credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A . After the amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orma credit even in respect of items which were not covered under MODVAT. On or after 1 5.4.^987, this condition has been relaxed so as to permit a manufacturer to avail of MODVAT and also proforma credit in respect of inputs not covered under the MODVAT scheme. Therefore, on a reading of sub-rule (9) along with ifs amendment on 15.4.1987 it is clear that there was a total restriction until 15.4.1987 on simultaneous,availment of the proforma credit under Rule 56A and MODVAT under Rule 57A. Therefore, in the present case of the appellant on the above interpretation of the Rule 56A, sub-rules (8) and (9) the order of the lower authorities barring the appellants from enjoying both the facilities simultaneously is valid till 15.4.1987. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
