9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is violation of Rule 57-O(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soap covered under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were availing benefit of money credit scheme in respect of specified oils under the Notification No. 192/87, dated 12-8-1987. This notification was rescinded on 25-8-1989. Thereafter as representations were made by the trade and the Government again restored the money credit admissibility for specified oil used in soap vide Notification No. 46/89, dated 11-10-1989. The appellants filed fresh declaration under Rule 57-O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 13-10-1989. The appellants availed the benefit of money credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 46/89, dated 11-10-1989 is therefore not a correct finding in law. 4. He further submitted that the impugned order failed to appreciate that requirement of filing declaration flows out of Rule 57-O which has all along remained on the statute book. It was only Notification 192/87 which was rescinded by Notification 39/89 and subsequently, money credit scheme was once again made available through Notification 46/89, dated 11-10-1989. 5. He further submits that the impugned order has denied credit primarily by seeking reliance on Tata Oil Mills case, 1990 (48) E.L.T. 279. It is submitted that, facts of the case as covered by Tata Oil Mills were entirely different inasmuch as, Tribunal in that case was dealing with a situation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Allied Industries v. Collector of Customs reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 341 where the Tribunal held that money credit under Rule 57-O of Central Excise Rules, 1944 not restricted to inputs received earlier although credit to be taken subsequent to such acknowledgement. Ld. Legal Manager also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Shri Krishna Vanaspati Products v. Collector of Customs reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 416 and submits that in this case the assessee has not filed fresh declaration or revival money credit scheme and took the benefit of money credit scheme. The Tribunal here that when input and output remains the same, non-filing of fresh declaration is only a technical breach which is curable. In these circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... technical breach which is curable. In the present case the appellant took credit on stock lying in the factory after filing the fresh declaration. The Tribunal in case of Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries v. Collector of Customs (supra) after considering the provisions of Rule 57-O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 held that the sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-O lays down that a manufacturer who has filed a declaration in sub-rule (1) may, after obtaining the acknowledgement take credit of money on the inputs. It does not specifically state that such inputs should be only those received after obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration. A view can be taken that while credit can be taken only after obtaining the dated acknowledgemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
