9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy. One of the most important and universal rules is that time, when it has once commenced to run in any case will not cease to do so by reason of any subsequent event which may be within the saving of the statute. The law of limitation is not one of substance but of procedure. The object of prescribing limitation is to put an end to litigation, or to state it in other words, litigation may attain finality. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the demand of Rs. 1,15,405.00 taken as Modvat credit and penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 when the Modvat credit was due to the applicant in all respects? 2. However, the proposed question No.1 is comprehensive enough and it comprises all the other questions of law sought to be raised herein. 3. The facts of the case are not much in dispute and may be noticed in brief to understand the controversy. The applicants are registered with the Central Excise Department and are engaged in manufacture of steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the facility of Modvat Scheme and were availing the credit of duty paid, both on inputs as well as capital goods in accordance with the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments is barred by Rule 57G(2) of the aforestated Rule and therefore cannot be claimed, mainly on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). 6. Shri A.P. Mathur, advocate, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that it was a case of mistake of law and the necessary documents for claiming the additional 5% (differential credit) were already presented and were in possession of the department, in this view of the matter, the bar of six months period imposed by aforestated Rule will not be applicable. The Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (supra) was considering the situation different than the present one. Therein no c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified under Rule 57J are received by the manufacturer, after nine months." 8. The above rule came up for consideration and interpretation before the Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (supra) The validity of the said provision was not under challenge therein. The only controversy raised before the Apex Court was that the rule in question is not applicable in regard to the credits acquired by a manufacturer prior to coming into force of the rule. Disagreeing with the said proposition, the Apex Court observed that a plain reading of the said sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those cases where a manufacturer is seeking to take the credit after the introduction of the rule and to cases where the manufacturer is seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a civil war had broken out, and the Government was usurped by certain traitors and rebels, which hindered the course of justice, and by which the courts were shut upon and that within six years after the war ended he commenced his action and yet his replication was held to be bad. 12. The law of limitation is not one of substance but of procedure. The object of prescribing limitation is to put an end to itigation, or to state it in other words, litigation may attain a finality. 13. The other principle of interpretation while dealing with the provisions of a fiscal statute is that a fiscal statute should be read as it is without adding or subtracting any word. There is no equity about the tax and equitable considerations are not relevant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt while construing the relevant provision of the Act has held that the proper way to deal with such a provision is to give it an interpretation which, to use the words of the Privy Council in Mahaliram Ramjidas's case, AIR 1940 PC 124, "makes the machinery workable, ut res valeat potius quam pereat." 18. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the applicant to the case of Commissioner of C.EX., Jaipur v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., 2000 (116) E.L.T. 581 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that the bar created by the amended rule would have no application when the initial credit was taken within the prescribed period and the additional or the differential credit being taken after the prescribed period of six months. The said judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
