9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the balance credit as they had used half of the total quantity of the furnace oil in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products. Later, they thought that they ought to have taken the remaining credit also as it occurred to them that the bar contained in Rules 57C and 57CC was not applicable to fuels. In this view of the matter, they requested the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 16-11-1999 for permission to avail the balance credit on furnace oil. This request received the following response. "C.No. IV/16/73/99 &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of limitation, according to the consultant, should be reckoned from the date (12-1-2000) on which the department granted permission to the assessee for availing the credit in question. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Tribunal's decision in Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [2002 (147) E.L.T. 933], wherein it was held, in the facts of that case, to the effect that the period of limitation of six months prescribed under Rule 57G for availment of input duty credit was to be computed from the date on which the departmental embargo on such availment of credit was lifted, which was the date of an order passed by the Tribunal. Ld. Consultant also relies on the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way guided by law nor by department's conduct. Hence, it is submitted, the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. (supra) is inapplicable to this case. The appellants themselves do not have a case that the department delayed any statutory permission, nor can they have any such case inasmuch as there was no requirement in law for such permission. Therefore, the Supreme Court's ruling cited by ld. Consultant is also inapplicable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute of the fact that, during the material period, there was a time limit of six months prescribed under Rule 57G for availment of input duty credit. This period, in terms of sub-rule 5 of the said Rule, was to be computed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio of this decision would not help the present appellant. Unlike in the case of Orient Paper and Industries (supra), in the present case, no departmental permission was required for the assessee to take the input duty credit in question. In other words, there was no departmental embargo on credit-taking which can be said to have been lifted by the Assistant Commissioner's permission dated 12-1-2000. Hence the period of limitation in the present case can only be computed from the dates of the duty-paying documents. The Supreme Court's ruling in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case. In the case considered by the Apex Court, there was a delay of action on the part of the department, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
