9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected against the Order-in-Appeal No. R-9/Ng-1/89, dated 23-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V(84) 3-160/87/16791 dated 20-10-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. II Nagpur, refusing the availment of credit to the extent of Rs. 7660.70 and raising a demand for the said amount under Rule 57-I of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 and they were eligible to get the credit vide sub-rule (1) of Rule 57H. He has submitted that the rejection of the claim is by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of the said rule. It is his submission that sub-rule (1) is independent of sub-rule (2) and when the credit is available under sub-rule (1) rejection thereof by taking recourse to sub-rule (2) was not justifiable. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the declaration and that the same was received on 31-3-1986.There is also no dispute over the fact that the duty has been paid on the input on or before 31-3-1986 i.e. on 24-1-1986. The submission made by the Ld. Advocate that sub-rule (1) was independent of sub-rule (2) cannot be accepted, as sub-rule (1) of Rule 57H makes a general provision for availment of the credit for the goods receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the item was eligible for availment of credit under any other provisions, then by virtue of the exclusion clause incorporated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 57H, the bar provided thereunder would not stand attracted. If the duty is paid prior to 31-1-1986, the appellant would become eligible to take credit. Rejection of the credit therefore does not seem to be justified on the grounds mentioned by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
