9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting duty either in PLA or RG 23A Part II. The appellants who are represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate submits that in addition to obtaining granules from the domestic market, they were also importing granules duty free under Advance Licencing Scheme and that they had not availed any Modvat credit on the above mentioned quantity and hence were not required to debit any duty thereon. However, as seen from the Order-in-Original No. 66/96, dated 29-3-1996 of the Assistant Collector, the appellants had a stock of 1,01,423 Kgs. of Shell K-6100 PP granules as on 1-4-1993, they received 36,80,289 Kgs. of PP granules during the period 1-4-1993 to 31-3-1994 whereas they had issued 30,79,707 Kgs. during the said period, resulting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduction of scheme of credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q and the Department does not dispute the genuineness of the duty paying documents in respect of the goods in the factory and use thereof by the appellants in their factory, and they, therefore, urge that the above mentioned credit amount should be held to be available to them. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Multi Metals Ltd. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 682. In this case, the assessees/respondents have been held to be eligible to credit even though there was a delay of more than 3 months after the receipt of the capital goods in filing the declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules. This decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are entitled to credit of Rs. 40,769/-. 5. Credit of Rs. 117/- has been disallowed as representing excess credit against Invoice No. 35, dated 5-10-1994 because pro-rata duty paid by the manufacturer is Rs. 1,152/- against which the appellants availed credit of Rs. 1,269/-. The denial of this amount is not disputed by the appellants as seen from Paragraph 4 of the grounds of appeal. Hence I uphold the denial of credit of Rs. 117/-. In the result, but for confirmation of the denial of credit of Rs. 117/-, I hold that the appellants are eligible to the remaining amount of Rs. 57,873.41. This appeal is partly allowed. 6. Appeal No. E/2689/99 relates to denial of credit of Rs. 80,141/- availed during the month of October, 1994 on sweep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
