9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed any time before the obtaining dated acknowledgement of the declaration filed under Rule 57G was legally sound and correct? 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as projected by the appellant is that the respondent is engaged in manufacture of unwrought aluminium from Bauxite and other complete range of down stream products of aluminium chargeable to excise duty under Chapter 76 of the Act. It claimed Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57H(1B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the Rules ) on duty paid by it on petroleum products in stock as on 1-3-1994. However, the same was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, on the ground of delay vide Annexure A/3. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to transitional credit. 5. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515, wherein it was held that in the absence of any period of limitation in Modvat Rule 57, the general period of limitation prescribed in the Act (Section 11A) would be applicable. It was argued that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra. The period of limitation cannot be imported by the Courts by implication in the absence of any specific provision made in that regard. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in the matters of Industrial Cables v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 638 (P H); Collector of Central Ex., Alla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed declaration under Rule 57G on 31st March, 1994. It again filed declaration in terms of Rule 57H on 4-7-1995 and thereafter, took credit of duty. However, credit has been denied with an observation that the general period of limitation provided under the Modvat Scheme vide Rule 57G would be applicable for filing declaration under Rule 57H. 9. In the matter of Industrial Cables - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 638 (P H), the Punjab and Haryana High Court and in Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd. - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 12 (All.), the Allahabad High Court, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raghuvar (India) Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) held that the period of limitation of six months was prescribed under Rule 57G w.e.f. 29-6-1995 and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty, as contemplated by the rules, is to be made - the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it cannot be rendered unreasonable on the aforesaid ground alone as it is well settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case and it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay. 11. Indisputably, in the instant case, the respondent had filed declaration under Rule 57G on 31st March, 1994. However, to take benefit of Rule 57H, another declaration was filed on 4-7-1995 in terms of Rule 57H(1B) of the Rules. The Learned Commissioner disallowed the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
