9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 6,45,293/- (Rupees six lakh forty five thousand two hundred ninty-three) and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 2. As per the facts on record the appellant availed the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs on the basis of the invoice within a period of six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n became entitled to credit of the Modvat already reversed by them. Accordingly they credited the said amount of Modvat in their records again. The Revenue s objection is that such credit was made by them after a period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoice and as such the provisions of Rule 57G(2) have been contravened, thus resulting in rejection of credit to the appellants. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of six months from the date of issuance of the invoice. The appellant had already availed the credit within the said period. Once the appellant earns the credit the only question, which remains, is about its utilisation. The said credit so earned by the appellant in accordance with law was utilised by them by reversing the same at the first instance when exports were made under DEEC Scheme. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be supervised and when the appellant made the credit entry in their records second time, they were only reversing the debit entry of the credit already earned by them. As such the provisions of rule 57G(2) do not have any role to play in these circumstances and their contravention cannot be alleged against the appellant. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion I set aside the impugned order and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
