9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-1994 for DMT and MEG the appellants on receipt of intermediate product - polyester chips - received from the job workers took the credit of Rs. 1,52,880.00 on 24-7-1995. Both the authorities below have denied Modvat credit on the ground that credit had been taken beyond six months from the date of issue of the invoice which is not permissible in view of the amendment made in Rule 57G disallowing credit of duty after six months of the date of issue of the invoices. This amendment was made by Notification 28/95, dated 29-6-1995. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri V. Swaminathan for the appellants has urged that the amendment made in Rule 57G by the said Notification dated 29-6-1995 will not apply retrospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to aviod the operations and effect of all contrary provisions. Thus, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 70, namely, notwithstanding anything in that Act must mean notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in that Act and as such it must refer to the exempting provisions which would be contrary to the general applicability of the Act. In other words, as all the relevant provisions of the Act are made applicable to a factory notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in it, it must have the effect of excluding the operation of the exemption provisions. Just as because of the Non Obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, be contrary to each other. Consequently, in view of Apex Court s judgment in the case G.M. Gokil, supra provisions of Rule 57J will override the provisions on Rule 57G. 4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I observe that the controversy whether retrospective effect to the amendment made in Rule 57G on 29-6-1995 can be given or not has been dealt at length by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Steel Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore vide its Order No. A/87-88/99-NB dated 5-2-1999 to which I was a party. In this connection para 13 of the said order of the Tribunal in the case National Steel Industries, supra is reproduced below : 13. When once it is accepted that taking Mod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulation inserted in the amendment is applicable to the credits which may accrue subsequent to the amendment. In view of our foregoing conclusion we do not find any justification for the recovery of the duty and imposition of penalty and in the result we set aside the impugned order allowing the appeal with consequential relief. 4.1 In the present case it is obvious that the goods had been received by the appellants herein under Rule 57J in September, 1995 although the invoice on which Modvat credit has been taken is dated 30-11-1994. There is substantial force in the plea of the learned Advocate that Rule 57J has an overriding effect over the Rule 57G in view of Supreme Court s judgment in the case of G.M. Gokil relied upon by him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
