9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative (SDR) ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The appeal is being taken up in pursuance of the order dated 02/02/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: 3. Learned counsel on both sides agree that in view of the Larger Bench decision of the tribunal in MRP Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore 2007 (208) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is that there was a delay of seven days after six months from the date of return of the Bill of Entry and the goods was received in the factory. Therefore, substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on technical grounds. The appellant also relied upon the Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 09/02/1999 to submit that by this notification Rule 57G has been amended to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try, has been settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of MRP Limited (supra.) The Tribunal held that credit cannot be taken after six months from the date of return of Bill of Entry as per the provision of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Further, I find that the reliance of the appellant on the provisions of the Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) will also not help their case as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall not be taken by the manufacturer after six months from the date of issue of any document specified under sub-rule (3). In view of the clear provisions and in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal I find no infirmity whereby the demand along with interest is confirmed. 7. In respect of the penalty, I find that the penalty is imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
