9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re also availing exemption under Notification 175/86 and when their clearances exceed the first slab, their final products attract duty, when they simultaneously opt for Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on inputs. They received the inputs - one under G.P.1 6 dated 23-8-1989 and another under G.P.1 9 dated 20-10-1989 and took the credit in respect of both the above receipts on 28-10-1989. However, they filed the Modvat declaration only on 17-11-1989, when they crossed the total exemption limit and their final products attracted duty. On that date itself, they claimed to have utilised the input received under G.P.1 6 dated 23-8-1989 and also utilised the entire credit towards payment of duty. However the Department objected to the availm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Jain, the learned JDR, however, contended that they had received the inputs, when they were availing exemption and taken Modvat credit, before coming to the duty paying category. They filed the declaration only on 17-11-1989, when their final products became dutiable. Hence credit taken earlier, when their final products were exempted, cannot be allowed even under Rule 57H. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the following factual position is not disputed. They received inputs one under Gate Pass No. 6 dated 23-8-1989 and another under Gate Pass No. 9 dated 20-10-1989 and took the credit in respect of both the receipts on 28-10-1989, whereas they filed the Modvat declaration only on 17-11-1989, on which date they crossed the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However in the case of the input received under gate pass No. 9 dated 20-10-1989, it was very much lying in stock not only on the date of filing the declaration but also on the date, when they sought for permission to regularise the credit under Rule 57H, vide their letter dated 15-3-1990. The argument of Shri Jain that since the credit was taken during the period, when the final products were exempted, it is not permissible even under Rule 57H, does not appeal to us. The said credit was sought to be disallowed in view of the contravention of Rule 57G. However, when that input, which has been received before filing the declaration, was very much available and was lying in stock in the factory for verification by the Assistant Collector as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
