9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of amount by the appellant to the supplier as per the price escalation clauses. The appellant was correct in stating that the Notification 51/2000-CE(NT) is clarificatory in nature inasmuch, prior to 1.4.2000, cenvat credit was available on the supplementary invoices raised by the supplier as also on the 57E certificates. It is well settled law that cenvat credit is a beneficial legislation, hence the benefit which is due to the appellant should not be curtailed due to want/error of the drafting in legislation. It is found that this error of eligibility to avail cenvat credit on the 57E certificates/supplementary invoices was rectified by issuance of Notification 51/2000-CE(NT) on 29.8.2000 which was considered by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that supplementary invoice has to be considered as a document for availing cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority, after following due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised, accordingly confirmed the demands raised along with interest and also imposed penalty. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant draws our attention to the facts of the case. He would submit that prior to 1.4.2000 and post 29.8.2000, cenvat credit was available on supplementary invoices raised by the supplier subject to conditions. He would submit that in the case in hand, there was no violation of any conditions. He would submit that amendment made to Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was clarificatory in nature and B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificates during the period 1.4.2000 to 29.8.2000. It is undisputed that the supplementary invoices/57E certificates were issued by the concerned range authorities in respect of discharge of duty liability of goods which were already dispatched from the factory of the supplier and the supplementary invoices were raised to pay the differential duty due to either finalization of their provisional assessment or due to payment of amount by the appellant to the supplier as per the price escalation clauses. 7. We find that the learned counsel was correct in stating that the Notification 51/2000-CE(NT) is clarificatory in nature inasmuch, prior to 1.4.2000, cenvat credit was available on the supplementary invoices raised by the supplier as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat Rules. He submits that the Madras High Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Madras v. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd, reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 647 has held that additional duty paid on inputs by manufacturer thereof subsequent to date of receipt of inputs by assessee under erstwhile Rule 57E being a clarificatory and procedural, assessee is entitled to avail additional credit in respect of the additional duty paid on the inputs. Notification 51 /2000-C.E. (NT.) had been issued under Rule 57E, therefore, the cited judgment would apply to this case. 3. Appearing for the Revenue, ld. DR Shri P. Devaludu, opposes the prayer of the ld. Counsel and submits that the notification does not have a retrospective effect and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
