9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicines. They received imported raw materials such as Beta Cerotene, Vitamin A Palmit etc. from the importer M/s. Universal Medicare Limited, for using the same in the manufacture of P or P medicaments, details are as under :- S/ No. Bill of entry No. date Date of qnty. Credit taken in RG23 Part-I Modvat availed in RG23 Part-II Entry No. Date Amount of credit taken in Rs. 1. 607258/19-2-1999 10-3-1999 913/11-10-1999 1,17,629.00 2. 821612/11-3-1999 12-5-1999 914/11-10-1999 84,003.00 3. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the decisions cited above, appellant submits that he is eligible for the credit. 3.3 Ld. SDR on the other hand relied on the Larger Bench decision in MRP Limited [2007 (208) E.L.T. 19 (Tri.-LB)] in support of his contention that credit cannot be taken after 6 months of the issue of the documents as per the provision of Rule 57C. He submits that in this case in all the cases covered by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), credit was taken after 6 months. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. All the decisions cited by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants are prior to the decision of the Larger Bench in MRP Limited case. The relevant Para of the decision of the Larger Bench is reproduced below :- 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions, the word issue used in the time-bar provision viz. sub-rule 5 of Rule 57G has to be understood as meaning return used in Section 47(2) of the Customs Act. Therefore, in our view, it is not correct to say that a triplicate copy of Bill of Entry mentioned in clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 57G or a duplicate copy of Bill of Entry mentioned in clause (k) of the said sub-rule was not a document issued by any authority. Either of these documents should be held to be a document issued by the proper officer of Customs to the importer. Therefore, sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G providing for a period of six months from the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3) for the purpose of availment of input duty credit must b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved later. The facts are similar and therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Larger Bench. Accordingly, as far as the demand for Modvat credit is concerned, the appeal fails. However as regards penalty, the appellants succeed, in view of the fact that there were contrary decisions during the relevant period and the issue came up for decision by the Larger Bench decision cited above. 6. In view of the above discussion, the demand for Modvat credit and the interest thereon are upheld but penalty is set aside. (Pronounced in the Court on _____ 2009) Sd/- B.S.V. Murthy Member (Technical) 7. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After going through the order proposed by my learned Brot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avail the credit within a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of the duty paid documents are connected with the movement and receipt of the goods and once it is established that the goods are received by an assessee, he gets the vested rights to avail the credit. If for removing some lacunae in papers or for satisfaction of some procedural aspects, period of more than 6 months is taken, the same should not be made the basis for denial of credit. This has been the ratio of the various decision referred to by ld. Advocate. 9. The said decisions have been held to be over ruled by my learned Brother, by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of MRP Limited [2007 (208) E.L.T. 19 (Tri.-Larger Bench)]. Ld. Member (Techni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be allowed to the appellant, especially when there is no dispute about the duty paid character of the inputs, their receipt in the appellants factory and utilization in the manufacture of the final product. The provisions debarring taking of credit after the period of 6 months from the date of issuance of duty paying documents were introduced with intent to avoid misuse of the same, where inputs are obtained after a period of 6 months from the clearance from the factory of the manufacturer or from the premises of the dealer etc. Inasmuch as in the present case admittedly goods were received within a period of 6 months and entries were duly made in their RG 23A Part-I, it was only a question of making suitable entries in Part-II registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
