9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y credit had been allowed on inputs covered and had to be varied later, whereas in the present case no credit was allowed on the said fabric, hence the request for permission to avail credit of duty paid on dip fabric received during 12-7-87 to 31-7-87, was denied. 2. The matter of refusal of this application went up to the Tribunal wherein vide Order No. 915/1994, dated 13-12-94 [1996 (86) E.L.T. 68 (Tribunal)], the same was remanded for reconsideration of the issue afresh. Para-5 of the Tribunal order is as follows : 5. We have considered the submissions made before us. The issue before us is whether the appellants are entitled to take Modvat credit in respect of the inputs in question for the period 12-3-87 to 31-7-87. For the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal is thus allowed by remand . 3. Consequent to this order of the Tribunal, the Asstt. Collector in remand proceedings once again disallowed the credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal holding as follows : 6. Rule 57E deals with the situation where the manufacturer of final products avails of the Modvat credit based on duty paid inputs as on a given date and subsequently, the duty paid on inputs is reduced/enhanced for any reason. In the case at hand, on the given date i.e between 12-3-87 to 31-7-87, the appellants had neither declared the inputs in the Rule 57G declaration nor had they taken any credit of the duty paid on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had initially availed Modvat credit and subsequently, the question of taking credit of additional duty paid arose. Such is not the case at hand. In this case no duty credit was originally taken. In the second case relied upon i.e HCL Ltd. v. CCE [1994 (71) E.L.T. 508 (T)] the facts and circumstances were entirely different. Rule 57E was not at all in question in that case. Moreover, while the Hon ble Tribunal has allowed Modvat credit after a period of 10 months, it is now settled law that even when there was no time limit prescribed in the Modvat rules for taking credit, the period of six months in the limitation period. In the instant case, the period of six months stood long lapsed. This decision also, on this ground too, does not come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
