9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f identical amount. In addition personal penalties of 7.5 lakhs each stands imposed upon the other appellants who are the Director, Vice President and Assistant Manager of the appellant company. 2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the credit of Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) availed by the manufacturing unit, which are engaged in the manufacture of various types of textiles, can be utilized for payment of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act, as leviable on their final product. The period involved in the present appeal is December, 1998 to June, 2001 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 30-7-2001. The appellant dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 as there is no involvement of suppression of facts. 3. Commissioner did not follow the above orders and on his own interpretation of the provisions of Modvat rule held that such cross utilization was not permissible. He also referred to Board's Circular No. 345/18/2000-TRU, dt. 14-12-2000, which is to the effect that the use of the word "said" under Rule 57AB(2)(b) establishes a link whereby the credit of AED(T&TA) paid on inputs can be utilized for payment of duty under the AED(T&TA) on final product and not on AED(GSI) leviable on the final product. However, we find that the expression "said", as appearing in Rule 57AB was examined by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty of each kind, shall be used towards payment of duty of the same kind, by employing the word "respectively". The position prior to and subsequent to the period under consideration emphasises the point that a plain reading of the rules at the relevant time does not support the interpretation that the Commissioner places. The reference to the earlier and later position emphasises the distinction that exists in the rule under consideration and the different meaning made manifest in the other provision. If the intention were in fact to restrict the credit of one kind towards payment of duty of some kind, it could very easily and simply have been given effect as has been done in the two kinds of situation that we have examined." 4.&ems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
