9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible for the exemption and the issue was finally settled by an order dated 6-2-1987 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai, wherein he held that the respondents will be eligible for the exemption, if otherwise admissible. Thereafter, the Asstt. Commissioner passed an order on 3-1-1991 in which he held that credit of duty in balance cannot be carried forward and hence denied the respondents permission to transfer the balance of credit of Rs. 20,88,694.47 accumulated in terms of Notification 103/61 as inadmissible. The Asstt. Commissioner held that when once the notification is rescinded which was with effect from 15-10-1984, whatever credit in balance should lapse and it cannot be permitted to be transferred to Modvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of A.C.C. v. Collector - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 313 wherein the Tribunal held when the Notification 201/79 was rescinded the exemption granted thereunder would no longer be available when the credit was not immediately available before March, 1987 when the declaration for Modvat was filed. Shri Prakash Shah ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the case law relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) fully covers their situation. The ld. Counsel also cited the Tribunal decision Commissioner v. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 256 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal held that if the transitional facility was held not applicable under Rule 57H, then the department will consider the grant of refund in cash. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Counsel pointed out the factual situation in the A.C.C. case (supra) was not similar. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the department s view that the transfer of the credit balance earned under Notification 103/61 is not possible under Rule 57H cannot be accepted. The fact remains that the respondent herein had opted for Modvat credit soon after its promulgation in 1986 itself. During that period their claim for set-off of duty under Notification 103/61 was in dispute which was resolved only by the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 6-2-1987. Therefore, they could have asked for the transition facility under Rule 57H only thereafter, as they could not have made this application when the matter was still in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
