9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti, Member (T)]. This Reference Application arises out of the order of the Tribunal bearing No. 807/1990. The Tribunal in the order following the ratio of the decision of this Bench in Order No. 416/90, has held that the appellants were entitled to take Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid subsequent to the receipt of the inputs in the appellants unit in terms of substantive provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal, holding that in the absence of any prohibition, Rule 57A by itself is the authority for allowing the credit where duty in respect of the goods is paid subsequent to the date of receipt of the goods in the factory, is correct in law? The learned JDR for the Department reiterated the pleas urged in the Reference Application. The Tribunal in the order has held as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finalisation of provisional assessments, short levy due to mistake on the part of the assessee or even the Department etc. In such cases, it will be entirely wrong to deny the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of such duty payments. The specific provisions of Rule 57E, after its amendment from 1-3-1987 does not go against the substantive provisions of Rule 57A, which is the basic authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the inputs for which the Modvat credit had been taken by the assessee who purchased the inputs. The absence of a provision for the assessee to take further Modvat credit in case further duty was paid by the supplier would not mean that the substantive provision of Rule 57A would not come into operation. It is for this reason it has been held that the subsequent amendment of Rule 57E providing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
