9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s. Associated Switch Gear (P) Ltd. respondents in the present appeal was not admissible and could not be allowed under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules. He accordingly demanded the said amount under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the assessee (respondent herein) holding inter alia, that the delay in the application under Rule 57H was no ground to disallow credit as that was only an additional request. He also held that the assessee should have been allowed Modvat credit on inputs lying under Rule 56A on 1-3-1986 and the audit objection that the same should not be.allowed prior to declaration under Rule 57G is incorrect as Rule 57G itself came into force on 1-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The first order disallowing the credit was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) remanding the matter for de novo decision. It was contended by Shri Agarwal that no show cause notice was issued in time for the alleged wrong taking of the credit in March 1986. He, therefore, pleaded that the department s appeal be dismissed. 4. Shri Tilak, learned DR gave a rejoinder that the show cause notice issued on 20-9-1995 with reference to the credit taken on 27-3-1995 and not the date of the original taking of the credit which was in March, 1986. Respondent reversed the credit objected to by the department on 9-9-1987. They again restored the credit without any permission from the department on 27-3-1995 and this was the subject of show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e novo adjudication was ordered by Collector (Appeals) on an earlier appeal in the same matter as there was no show cause notice. There was an audit objection alleging wrong taking of credit. In the impugned order dealt with now, Collector (Appeals) has, as noted earlier, held that the audit objection that credit should not be allowed, was incorrect. The delay in the application under Rule 57H was held to be no ground to disallow the credit, under Rule 57H(1), as it stood in March, 1986 credit of duty for inputs received before filing the declaration under Rule 57G was allowable by the Assistant Collector if he was satisfied that such inputs were lying in stock or were received in the factory on or after 1-3-1986 and that such inputs were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
