9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Products (SPO). The ACC had rejected the application. However, the Commissioner (Appeals), after due consideration, found that the Assistant Commissioner has misapplied the law and has wrongly referred to proviso to Rule 57F(4) as it existed in 1997. He noted that the action on the part of the assessee in transferring the unutilized credit suo motu from DASDA to SOP account is not contrary to the provisions of Modvat Rules. He also referred to the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Samtel (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 468 (Tri.). This is challenged by the Revenue on the ground that after 27-1-1997, they were not eligible to transfer the Modvat credit lying in RG23A of DASDA to the Combined RG23A for both DASDA and SOP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the credit allowed in respect of duty paid thereon. The inputs in respect of which a credit of duty has been allowed under Rule 57A may - (i) be used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final products for which such inputs have been brought into the factory; or (ii) shall be removed, after intimating the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over factory and obtaining a dated acknowledgement of the same, from the factory for home consumption or for export under bond, as if such inputs have been manufactured in the said factory. Provided that where the inputs are removed from the factory for home consumption on payment of duty of excise, such duty of excise shall in no case be less than the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that said inputs have been received and used in the factory of production on or after the 15th day of March, 1995. I find from perusal of Annexure-D of SCN, dt. 23-4-99 that the inputs were received by the respondents from 17-3-95 to 31-12-96. Therefore, the condition regarding receipt and use of inputs on or after 15th day of March, 1995 has been fulfilled by the appellants. Since the Central Government had permitted cross utilization of credit earned by an assessee irrespective of the fact whether the said inputs have been actually used or not in the manufacture of other final product, denial of this benefit by the adjudicating authority appears to be not legal and proper. Therefore, I am not inclined to sustain the said order. I also fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
