9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit the appellant have taken the credit even though belatedly the same cannot be denied on the ground of time bar. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Raghuvar (India) Ltd - 2000 (118) ELT 311(SC) * Balkrishna Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd- 2016 (340) ELT 55 (Guj.) * SGS India Private Limited - 2011 (270) ELT 115 (Tri. Guj) * Steel Authority of India Limited - 2013 (287) ELT 321 ( Tri. Del) * Borosil Glass Work s Limited- 2015 (319) ELT 119 (Tri. Mum) * Transformers and Rectifiers- 2010 (262) ELT 983 (Tri. Ahd) * Industrial Cables - 2009 (236) ELT 658 - (P&H) * Ram Sawrup Electricals Ltd- 2007 (217) ELT 12 (All.) * Pratibha Syntex Ltd - 2013 (287) ELT 290 * Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals - 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC) * Brakes India Ltd - 1997 (96) ELT 434 * Mold-tek Technologies Ltd- 2006 (205) ELT 415 3. On the other hand Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that even though the time limit is not prescribed during the relevant period, the appellant is supposed to take the credit within the reasonable time period. Since the appellant have taken the credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue is no more res Integra. Reliance can be placed to the following decisions; (i) Indian Potash Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST, Meerut [2018 (10) TMI 1367-CESTAT Allahabad] (ii) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax [2018 (10) TMI 1366- CESTAT Bangalore] (iii) Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST & CE, Indore[2019 (1) TMI 1426-CESTAT New Delhi] (iv) Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai [2018 (11) TMI 1019-CESTAT Chennai] 4 E/53851-53852/2018-[DB] (v) Umesh Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West [2019 (1) TMI 1158- CESTAT Bangalore] (vi) Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Raipur [2019 (4) TMI 473-CESTAT New Delhi] Wherein it was clearly held that the six month limitation provided with effect from 01/09/2014 would not apply to the cenvatable invoices issued prior to said date. The other decisions relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are also to the same effect but multiplying the precedent decisions would not make a difference as it is a settled law. Further, not only various Tribunals' decisions but Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in case of Global C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a specific provision made in that regard. The view of the Supreme Court is discernible from reading of few lines from para 13 of the judgment, which are as under :- "13. Any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the Courts to import any specific period of limitation or implication, where there is really none, though Courts may always hold when any such exercise of power had the effect of disturbing rights of a citizen that it should be exercised within a reasonable period........" 6. The aforementioned principle has been followed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 12. It has been held that amendment to Rule 57G prescribing the limit of six months was introduced on 29-6-1995 which is prospective in its operation and in respect of the period earlier to that no limitation was prescribed. Therefore, it was concluded that any transaction earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1B of the Act is not applicable in a case of Modvat credit as the same is governed by Rules 57A to 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.). He submitted that like provisions of Section 11A of the Act which has been held to be not applicable to the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Act relating to Modvat credit, Section 11B is also not applicable. He further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai IchiKarkaria Ltd. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 353] has held that the credit under the Modvat Scheme which is available is indefeasible and it has no co-relation with the raw material and the final product it can be availed at any time. According to him no period of limitation having been prescribed under Section 57A of the Rules, the respondents were entitled to avail the difference of Modvat credit relating to short fall at any time. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondents have availed of the differential amount of duty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount equivalent to such credit wrongly availed of and disallowed by the proper officer. The recovery of credit availed of and utilized in utter breach of the faith and mutual trust and confidence which is the raison d'etre for the proper and successful working of the Modvat scheme and that too in gross violation of the mandatory requirements necessarily to be fulfilled before ever claiming or availing of such benefits cannot be said to be the same as the demand for payment to be made under Section 11A of the Act of any excise duty not levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid. They fall into two distinct and different altogether with basic as well as substantial differences to distinguish them from each other. As a matter of fact, Rule 57-I envisages disallowance of the credit and consequential adjustment in the credit account or the amount current maintained by the manufacturer and if only any such adjustment are not possible proceed to recover the amount equivalent to the credit illegally availed of. Consequently, the situation postulated to be dealt with under Rule 57-I cannot be said to involve a case of manufacture and removal of excisable goods without subjecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows : "17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit of the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtained an acknowledgement thereof. It is entitled to use the credit at any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on the excisable product. There is no provision in the Rules, which provides for a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilized, has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its benefit is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is, therefore indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no correlation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
