9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the duty in respect of the said inputs on the basis of gate passes where the consignor have debited the duty from RG 23B Part II (Money Credit) which appear to be inadmissible as per Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 4-8-1993 calling upon to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 60341/- should not be recovered from them. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the appellant came to the conclusion that: (i) the declaration filed under Rule 57G evidences that there has been declarations of the items N Butyl Alcohol and Ethyl Acetate as inputs. (ii) As on other point concerned, he found that Rule 57A clearly provided that credit was to be allowed of any duty of excise or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise. Money credit with reference to the separate scheme contemplated under Rule 57K to Rule 57N would only be considered relevant for the limited purpose of setting the liability of duty on specified final product by utilising cash subsidy for setting higher quantum of duty. He thereafter concluded, this settlement as made under Modvat Credit Scheme should not be considered as payment of duty of Central Excise for the purpose of availability of Modvat credit of specified duties and subsequent utilisation under Modvat scheme for payment of duty on the final product. 4. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) having set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and in having confirmed the demand of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s end. If Revenue wants to deny the Modvat credit in the appellants factory, they should have following the provisions of law and not resorted to denial of credit based on an interpretation, that debits made in RG 23B Part II register were not payment of duties of excise. (c) Perusal of the relevant notification specified the duties which are eligible for credit under Rule 57A also leads to the only conclusion that no distinction can be made on basis of variations in debits ie PLA, RG 23A or in 23B Part II. The findings of the Commissioner as to the nature of scheme in AAA of the Rules, as it then existed cannot be upheld as we find no reason to support that view. 6. In view of the findings, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
