9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules. The second issue was as to what is the date from which Modvat credit will be admissible. The third issue was as to what is the date from which money credit will be available under Rule 57O and the fourth point was whether the transitional provisions under Rule 57H(4) are applicable to money credit scheme or not. 3. The first point i.e. whether permission of Asstt. Commissioner is required or not. I note that the ld. Counsel for the appellant cited a number of decisions in which it was held that the permission of the Asstt. Commissioner was not necessary for availing the benefit of Rule 57H(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 44. This decision was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of arguments were adduced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that transitional provisions under Rule 57H will be applicable to the Money Credit Scheme under Rule 57O. In support of his contention, ld. Counsel cited a number of decisions prominent among them are the decisions of the Ashwini Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (37) RLT. 396, Oswal Vanaspati Allied Industries v. CCE reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 341 and in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 295. In these decisions, the Tribunal has observed :- The crucial sub-rule (2) lays down that a manufacturer who has filed a declaration in sub-ruled (1) may, after obtaining the acknowledgement take credit of money on the inputs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that a few days delay in filing the declaration from the date of issue of the notification should be favourably considered. I note that this view of the Tribunal is based on a Trade Notice issued by Bombay Central Excise Collectorate. This view of the Central Excise Collectorate is based on the ruling of the Apex Court as it then was understood held that notification in most of the cases is received much after the date which is printed on it. However, this view of the Apex Court is now completely changed in-as-much as the Apex Court has now held that the date of notification shall be deemed to be the date of receipt of the notification. I further note that there is no corresponding provision on the lines of 57H(4) under Rule 57O and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
