9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present proceedings. He allowed their contention that unless the transfer of credit is allowed the benefit of credit ordered by the Tribunal could not be extended to them. He had allowed the Appeal by remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision in the light of his observation. 2. In the Appeal before us, Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar has contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in observing that transfer of credit should have been allowed under the provisions of Rule 57H(3) as that Rule was not actually applicable in the instant case. Notification 201/79 was rescinded with effect from 1-3-1986 and the amount lying in balance in RG 23A Part II in the absence of granulated slag being specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the credit. They were not, however, given the benefit as the Assistant Collector rejected their request on the ground that the credit of duty available under Notification 201/79 had lapsed with the rescinding of Notification 201/79 with effect from 1-3-1986. Their Appeal against this order before the Collector (Appeals) has been decided in their favour, directing that the credit in RG 23 Part II account (credit of duty paid on Old Tariff Item 68 inputs) should be transferred under Rule 57H(3) to RG 23A Part II account (for Modvat Credit). Shri Banerjee pleaded that the res- cinding Notification 201/79 with effect from 1-3-1986 cannot adversely affect their accrued rights when the Notification was in force. They were deprived the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said to be a case of availment of such benefit immediately before filing of the declaration under Rule 57G. There was a break in their availing of such credit. Hence, the provisions of Rule 57H(3) were not applicable to them. Collector (Appeals) was not right in extending them the benefit of straight transfer of credit under RG 23 II Account to RG 23A Part II Account under Rule 57H(3). The Order is not correct and the Appeal should succeed to that extent. 6. Having said that we should take note of the case made out by Shri Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Respondents for non-denial of the benefit already accrued to them, only on the ground that the Notification had ceased to be effective. No doubt, if they were availing the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly taken the credit correctly, the same shall be restored to them and they shall not be denied the benefit of that credit. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in these terms. From the Order, it is seen that the Tribunal had directed that if the verification reveals that they had originally taken the credit correctly, the same shall be restored to them and they shall not be denied the benefit of that credit. Hence, what was ordered was the restoration of the credit already taken which was disallowed by the Department and not a new credit. If the credit is so restored to their account for the relevant period, it should enable them to use the same retrospectively for the payment of duty on their final product, which they could have paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
