9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid amounts has correctly been denied by the impugned order and is upheld . Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various instruments. They were availing the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 8,84,137/- during the period 26-3-1993 to 1-6-1993. The Asstt. Commissioner while adjudicating the case disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 8,84,137/-. The appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in which denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 655/- on undeclared inputs and Modvat credit of Rs. 6176/- on unendorsed gate pass was not contested. They contested only disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,77,306/- which was confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 15 16 while dealing with the interpretation of Rule 57E, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal held that bar of limitation does not apply to variation under Rule 57E. Ld. Counsel submits that there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 57E for varying Modvat credit and since there was no time limit, the disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57E was not warranted. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri D.N. Choudhary, ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that though there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 57E for varying the Modvat credit yet the amount can be varied only within a reasonable period. He refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Govt. of India v. Fine Pharma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing power under Section 37 particularly sub-section 2 (xvia) ibid. It was further held that differentiation between an Act of Parliament and Rule framed by the Central Govt. has no relevance for the application of the maxim Generalia specialibut non derogant and what is relevant is the scope, extent and area of the operation of the relevant provisions only. I note further that this decision in the case of Raghuvar India is specifically under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules wherein before 6-10-1988, there was no limitation as to demand of Modvat credit wrongly availed. Under Rule 57E also, there is no time limit prescribed as to the time within which the variation in Modvat credit taken can be allowed. Thus, I hold that the ratio of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
