9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility for modvat credit under Rules 57A and 57B are fulfilled and the reasonable time could be considered to be 6 months as in the case of refunds under Section 11B. So far as the instant case is concerned, although higher notional credit is admissible in view of the above judgement, but so far as question of reasonable time is concerned, although it has not been commented upon by the adjudicating authority i.e. the date of receipt of inputs in the factory premises and date of taking of credit in RG 23A Part I/Part II register yet perusal of the Annexure `A to the show cause notice reveal that except Bill of Entry No. 2597, dated 14-5-1991 modvat credit has been taken much after the period of 6 months considered to be reasonable time as per the above judgement. The judgement of the Hon ble Tribunal is therefore, not extendable. Since there is a wide gap between the receipt of the scrap and the entry in RG 23A Part I and II the same is not allowable. I, therefore, reject the appeal and uphold the orders of the Assistant Collector. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. They imported scrap for manufacture of steel in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants before the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chandigarh. 6. As per written submissions made before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh on 4-9-1992, the appellants have pleaded that they were under advice to make entry in RG 23A Part I and Part II at the time when the credit was to be utilised, and that they have been doing so since 1989. It was argued that (a) that this is confirmed from Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice dated 4-3-1992. It is seen that the date of entry in Part I and Part II of RG 23A register was the same in respect of all the 5 consignments which were the subject matter of adjudication; (b) that they had also submitted that these entries were made by them in the modvat register before the issue of scrap for the manufacture of ingots. They had also submitted that receipt entries were made immediately on receipt of scrap in Form IV register, and other registers kept for imported scrap were also maintained correctly; (c) that in the Order-in-Original the Assistant Collector had stated that the Show Cause Notice did not dispute that credit was admissible on merits, the duty has been paid as per the Bills of Entry and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al products cleared at any time. (4) A manufacturer of the final products shall submit to Superintendent of the Central Excise the original documents evidencing the payment of duty along with extracts of Parts I and II of Form RG 23A every month and the Superintendent of Central Excise shall, after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer." (e) that it is seen that while there is a restriction that no credit can be taken unless inputs are received in the factory, there is no condition that no such credit can be taken beyond a particular period after the receipt of such goods. (f) that it is, however, provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G of the Rules that the duty paying documents along with extracts of RG 23A shall be submitted by the manufacturer on monthly basis. It cannot, however, be inferred that if the credit has been rightly taken otherwise, this itself will be sufficient to disallow the modvat credit. (g) that it is also seen that Rule 57-I of the rules relate to recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner. This rule does not relate to the time limit within which the credit should be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that perusal of the annexure to the show cause notice would show that there was a time lag between date of receipt of the inputs in the factory of the appellants and the date of entering the goods in RG 23 Part I and taking credit of duty paid on the goods in RG 23A Part II. The ld. DR submits that time lag was too long which was not satisfactorily explained by the appellants. He therefore, submits that lower authorities have rightly confirmed the demand. 15. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that there is no dispute about the receipt of goods. Receipt of goods and issue thereof for manufacture of steel ingots was being recorded in the Form IV of the accounts maintained for raw material. Thus the receipt of goods in the factory and payment of duty on the inputs is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the goods should have been entered in RG 23A immediately on receipt of the goods and the credit on these inputs taken simultaneously in RG 23A Part II. We find that no doubt there is a stipulation in Rule 57G that the goods should be entered in RG 23A Part I and the duty paid on the inputs should be recorded in RG 23A Part II on receipt of the goods. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
