9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order by taking note of the proviso added to Rule 2(4) of CENVAT Rules 2001, which came into effect after 01.03.2002 and by applying the provisions contained in Section 21 and 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the benefits which were made available after 01.03.2002 and prior to 01.04.2000 would be deemed to have been in operation during the interregnum period and therefore, the first respondent was entitled for availing 100% CENVAT credits. Held that- in question of applicability of particular provision, clear and unambiguous language of that provision to be given its true meaning. Order of Tribunal granting benefit, directly in conflict with Rule 4(2) and therefore not sustainable. - 545 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2010 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority held that the first respondent should have taken only 50% of the duty paid in the financial year in which the capital goods were received and the balance could have been availed in any subsequent financial year on satisfaction of relevant Rule. The Tribunal however, held in the impugned order by taking note of the proviso added to Rule 2(4) of CENVAT Rules 2001, which came into effect after 01.03.2002 and by applying the provisions contained in Section 21 and 24 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the benefits which were made available after 01.03.2002 and prior to 01.04.2000 would be deemed to have been in operation during the interregnum period and therefore, the first respondent was entitled for availing 100% CENVAT credits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also availed 100% credit on the capital goods on 25.07.2001. But, it was beyond any controversy that in the relevant assessment year, as per the prevailing Rule viz., Rule 4(2)(a)of CENVAT Rules, 2001, the first respondent was entitled to avail only 50% of the duty paid and he was entitled to avail CENVAT credit only to an extent of 50% of the duty paid on the capital goods in the said financial year viz., up to 31.03.2001. As stated earlier, the provision viz., the proviso to Rule 4(2) providing for availing for 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods subject to clearance of the goods in the same financial year came into force only with effect from 01.03.2002. It is stated that such a benefit was prevailing even prior to 01.04.2000. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the rule, notification or order, as the case may be, had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded." 8. Therefore, when the provision contained in the Central Excise Act itself viz., Section 38 A specifically stipulates as to the applicability of the provisions as they were prevailing on the relevant date, there was no scope to invoke Section 21 and 24 of the General Clauses Act for the purpose of interpretation of Rule 4(2) of CENVAT Rules 2001. In this respect, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
