9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the show cause notice was barred by limitation. 2. In the Appeal, it has been contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the notice was barred by limitation. Actually, it was issued on 15-1-1990 which was within the time limit with reference to the date of submission of the relevant monthly RT 12 return viz. 5-8-1989. Only, in that return, the facts and details of taking Modvat Credit amount in question had been disclosed. For this approach, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. Agro Transformers Co. (P) Ltd. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 638 (Tri.) = 1992 (40) ECR 511. It has also been contended in the Appeal that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Mohanty stated that they have a strong case. They had taken credit originally on the basis of deemed credit order. Later, when they got the duty-paying documents, they found that more duty had been paid on the goods which they were entitled to take as Modvat Credit. They had taken the differential amounts within a short time of taking the original credit (deemed credit). In the case of Mysore Lac and Paint Works, taking of differential credit after taking original credit had been held to be permissible if it was within a period of six months. In the present case, the credit was taken within a short period. There is no dispute or doubt about the receipt and utili- sation of the inputs. Hence, Shri Mohanty pleaded that on merits also they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the time limit for issue of notice in Modvat cases would start from the date of receipt of the RT 12 return wherein the taking of credit would be indicated. But with due regard to the said decision, we feel the present case has to be regulated with reference to the amended Rule 57-I which refers to the date of taking credit. The relevant date is that of taking of credit and not date of knowledge of the Department about taking of such credit. The fact of taking of credit is reported to the Department within one month of its being taken. By applying the period of limitation of six months from the date of taking credit as per the actual wording of Rule 57-I, the Department has not been left with any impossible situation for issue of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e actual duty paid and the deemed credit amount originally taken has been taken by the Respondents. This cannot be denied to them if the same is supported by valid documents, in the absence of a provision excluding normal credit if deemed credit had already been taken. Credit equal to the duty paid on the inputs is what is permissible as credit. Deemed credit is an exceptional facility to get over the difficulty of non-availability of duty-paying documents. If such documents are available and can be correlated to the inputs in question, there is nothing in the Rules or Orders issued under Rule 57G to deny them the benefit of actual duty paid on the inputs. The fact that the Mysore Lac decision related to notional credit and not deemed credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
