9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the appellants have wrongly taken Modvat credit of Rs. 76,680/- after expiry of stipulated period of six months in contravention of Rule 57G(2) read with Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-1995, as they claimed that duplicate copy of invoice was lost by transporter and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was proposed to be imposed. The appellants in reply to the Show Cause Notice stated that they took up the matter with M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd.; about the loss of transporters copy and have further stated that in case of any reason the manufacturer, supplier of the dealer does not issue proper documents within the said period will have to be reckoned from the date when he issued such documents. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paying documents on 26-7-1996. In this context he invited my attention to the letter dated 26-7-1996 from the transporter Patel Roadways Ltd. wherein the transporter explained the reason for not giving the duty paying document at the initial stage and the reasons for delay. Shri Shaw stated that accordingly after informing the jurisdictional Superintendent they took credit in RG 23A Pt. II account on 27-7-1996. Shri Shaw argued that the condition that Modvat credit should be taken within six months from the date of issue of documents under Rule 57G was inserted vide Notification 28/95, dated 29-6-1995 and, therefore, the said condition would not have any effect on the goods in question since here the goods were received on 18-6-1995 i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication 28/95 is prospective in nature as revenue is not denying credit taken on the condition imposed by notification prior to the date of amendment. 4. In view of the foregoing, he requested for setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal. 5. I have carefully considered the appellant s submission both written as well as oral. The following facts are not disputed. (1) The inputs were received and entered in RG23 Pt-I on 18-6-1995 i.e. prior to the coming into effect of Notification 28/95, dated 29-6-1995. (2) The credit was not taken immediately thereafter, since duty paying documents did not accompany the goods (inputs). (3) The appellants pursued the matter with transporter and finally got the duty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to the date of Notification 28/95, as in the present case. The above mentioned two Tribunal decisions in the cases of M/s. Bhusan Steel Strip Ltd. and M/s. Eveready Industries India Ltd. were also not cited in the aforesaid Larger Bench Tribunal decision. 7. I therefore hold that the appellants, having received the inputs prior to the date of Notification 28/95, the said Notification will not apply in this case. It cannot also be lost sight of that if the duty paying documents had accompanied the goods, but for the lapse on the part of input supplier M/s. Kerala State Industrial Products Trading Corporation Ltd., the appellants would have taken credit also immediately after receipt of the goods. It is the law which bars the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
