9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factojy on or after the 1st day of March, 1987 was not admissible - claim for Modvat credit for the period 6-5-89 to 20-12-89 is not admissible due to amended provision of law prevalent during the period in this case as discussced above If under the statutory provision such credit was not permissible then the respondent was right to follow the aforesaid amended provision in deciding the issue of modvat credit - it was held that even after 5-5-1989 when the sub-rule was deleted from statute book, petitioner was entitled for modvat credit. In absence of any specific direction in this regard, the respondent while passing the order, considered the amended Rule 57(H) and disallowing the modvat Credit, in which no wilful disobedience is found - P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-12-1989. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court which was registered as C.P. No. 101/04. The aforesaid contempt petitioner was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order Annexure C-4 dated 11-4-2005. The operative part of that order reads thus :- "I am only inclined to direct the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Division, Jabalpur to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner in the capacity of quasi judicial authority and the same should be honoured by all concerned unless there is any other permissible statutory provision for interfering with the same. It is hereby made clear that there should be no administrative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C-5. That there was deliberate non-compliance and disobedience of the order dated 15-12-2000 so the respondent deserves to be punished for the contempt committed by him. 5. The respondent has filed reply and stated that there was no disobedience of the order passed by this Court and the Dy. Commissioner earlier had duly sanctioned refund of Rs. 70,79,167/- for the period 1-3-1987 to 5-5-1989 and rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for the period after 5.5.1989. The petitioner preferred a review application MCC No. 887/02 before this Court seeking modification of earlier order dated 15-12-2000 to the effect that it was entitled for the benefit of not only for the period between 1-3-1987 and 5-5-1989 but for the entire period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be appropriate to refer certain paragraph of order dated 22-7-2005 by which the case of the petitioner was decided by the respondent. Relevant para 2.14 and 2.15 reads thus :- "2.14. In the light of law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. (supra) by M.P. High Court that the purpose behind the Rule was to give credit both to the inputs which were lying in stock for verification and also those inputs which were already used in the manufacture of the goods which were cleared from the factory on or after 1st March, 1987. The clear language of the Rule does not admit of any other interpretation than the one which gives benefit in both the cases. I found that my predecessor vide his cited O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant period of this case. Rule 57-H as it existed w.e.f. 1-3-1987 and prior to 5-5-89 read as under : "57(H)(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57-G, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may allow credit of duty paid on inputs received by a manufacturer immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgment of the declaration made under the said rule if he is satisfied that - (i) Such inputs are lying in stock or received in the factory after filing the declaration made under 57-G, or (ii) Such inputs are used in the manufacturer of final product which are clear from the factory on or after 1st day of March, 1987. Provided that such inputs are not used in the manufacturer of final product which is exempted from w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court's order in true letter and spirit. Their claim for Modvat credit for the period 6-5-89 to 20-12-89 is not admissible due to amended provision of law prevalent during the period in this case as discusscd above. In view of above discussion and findings I pass the following order. ORDER (i) I reject the Modvat credit claim available on inputs consumed during the period 6-5-89 to 20-5-1989 under the amended proviso of erstwhile Rule 57-H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as discussed above." 8. The aforesaid order specifically states that sub-rule (2) provides for credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacturing of final product which were cleared from the factory on or after 1st day of March; 1987 was omitted. In thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
