9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants. Shri Mohanty submitted that they had taken Modvat credit-in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of their final products viz., aerated waters and utilised the same for payment of duty on such final product before 1-10-1987. Some quantity of such inputs, however, remained in stock on 1-10-1987 and the impugned order seeks to recover duty equivalent to the Modvat credit corresponding to such inputs as were in stock on 1-10-1987 on the ground that aerated water was removed from the list of specified goods for the purpose of Modvat credit. Shri Mohanty contended that it had been held in several decisions referred to in their written submissions before the Collector that such credit taken and also utilised before 1-10-1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative argued the case on behalf of the respondent Collector. He fairly conceded that the impugned order does not bring out the reasons why the decisions cited by the appellants were not considered applicable in the present case. He, however, supported the order and contended that the utilisation of credit for payment of duty on aerated waters had to be reversed as the inputs were actually used for manufacture of aerated waters when the product had gone out of the Modvat scheme. He referred to the Collector s finding that the longer time limit will be applicable in this case and supported the order. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record and gone through the decisions cited by the learned Counsel which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Honourable Supreme Court s observations in Govinddas v. Income-tax Officer -AIR 1977 SC 552, the Honourable High Court derived support for their view that a right which is acquired as a result of operation of a statutory provision cannot be taken away retrospectively unless the statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication it has the same effect. In the case before them, they noted that what had been done was to rescind the notifications and not the Rules. Though the right of the manufacturers to credit of money had crystallised only after issuance of the notification and the extent of it was governed by the terms of the notifications, once the said right got crystallised in terms of money it was not intended to be taken awa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Central Excise v. Kirloskar Electric Co. -1991 (56) E.L.T. 468 and Collector of Central Excise v. Sundar Engineering Industries, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 452. 6. The Collector in his impugned order had not considered these cases in their application to the issue before him. Nor has he disposed of the contention regarding adverse discrimination of treatment against them, the appellants having cited the decisions in the same Collectorate favouring two other manufacturers. These definitely make the order non-speaking to that extent. As, however, the matter stands squarely covered by a series of decisions already referred to by us earlier and as no investigation of facts is necessary, we are inclined to decide the same rather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of duty taken is dealt with in sub-rule (3) of Rule 57F, which has not been dealt with in the order. The Collector has only referred to sub-rule (1) thereof. He has held that with the final products ceasing to be specified goods, after their withdrawal from the Modvat Scheme, the removal of the inputs (for manufacturing of final products) has to be treated only as the removal of the inputs as such to be regulated under Rule 57P(1)(ii). This interpretation is not permissible and is not in order. We respectfully follow the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts already referred to by us. The fact that after the removal of final product from aerated water from the Modvat list, with effect from 1-10-1987, the said product continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession or wilful misstatement. If the Departmental officers who were aware of the withdrawal of the Scheme from 1-10-1987 did not find out the stock position as on that date and also did not issue the notice for reversal of the credit utilised, that will not be a case of collusion. Even errors or misconstruction or omission by the officers comes in the normal category of cases under Rule 57-I(1)(i) with the limited range of six months. Wilful misstatement or collusion or suppression of facts are not a Procrustean bed on which even ordinary cases of error or misconstruction are to be stretched to fit into its contours for attracting the longer time limit. We need not have gone into this aspect at all, as on merits we have decided to set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
