9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellants submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs. With the introduction of Rule 57F (17) (b) w.e.f. 1-3-1997, which required the appellants to reverse the Modvat credit earned and lying unutilised in their records as on 1-3-1997. However, the proviso to the said rule was to the effect that if the inputs are lying in stock or contained in finished products lying in stock as on 1-3-1997, the provision of the said rule would not apply. He submits that the applicants jurisdictional Central Excise authorities entertained a view that if the inputs are lying in their factory as contained in semi-finished stage, the Modvat credit earned on the inputs is required to be debited by them inasmuch as the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished on 6th and 7th of March, 1997 they were not entered in RG-1 record because they were not included in their declarations made on 3-3-1997 and 7-3-1997 as unfinished product on which the Modvat credit was required to be reversed by them as per the view entertained by Central Excise department. He submits that it was only after finishing of the said product that they realised their mistake as a result of which a declaration was filed on 7-3-1997. As regards another 40 drums it was pleaded before the authorities below that they have not yet gone through the final analysis and as such batch number is not shown which is given the final chemical analysis and the goods are finally packed for sale. 3. It is the submission of the ld. Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do with the declarations filed by the applicant under Rule 57F (17) (b) and the reversed entries made by them in their Modvat account. He submits that the statements on record show that the product in question was in fully packed condition and ready for their entries in RG 1 register. He further submits that the appellants stand that 20 drums which were finished on 6th and 7th of March, 1997 were kept by them for verification by their range Superintendent before making their entry in RG 1 is untainable and self-contradictory inasmuch as if the said goods were kept for verification at unfinished stage, the applicants should not have undertaken any other processes leading to the completion of the manufacture of the same product. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty out of the accumulated credit instead of showing as unfinished goods on 1-3-1997 and reverse back the credit. We also take note of the fact that the applicants reference under BIFR has already been registered by them. The Supreme Court in the case of Real Value Appliances Ltd. referred (supra) has held that the suspensions of legal proceedings against industrial units commence as soon as registration of reference is complete after scrutiny. The letter dated 26-3-1999 shows that the appellants case has been registered which can only be done after scrutiny. As such the ld. SDR s objection that it is merely an application to the BIFR which ipso-facto does not confer any benefits or any rights to the applicants to enjoy the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
