9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anda, Member (J) Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The Appellant challenging the first Appellate Order No. 88/KOL-VI/2003, dated 21-11-03 to be cryptic, prayed for setting aside of the impugned Order which had confirmed the Order of Adjudication holding as under :- "8. I have carefully gone through the impugned order, the appeal memorandum and the submissions of the appellant during personal hearing. The appellant cannot take the transitional credit suo motu without taking the department into confidence. In fact, in view of the amendment to Rule 57H inserted vide Notification No. 4/94-CE(NT), dated 1-3-94, the Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter referred to as "said goods") manufactured by the Appellant. Prior thereto, the said goods were exempted in terms of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated May 11, 1984, as amended. On 1-3-94 itself, Modvat Credit Scheme was extended to the said goods by Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated March 1, 1994. Hence, in respect of the duty-paid input materials used or in relation to manufacture of the dutiable final products, the Appellant became eligible to avail Modvat Credit of the Duty paid on the input materials. The Appellant took transitional Modvat Credit of Rs. 5,50,39,891.88 (Rupees five crores fifty lakhs thirty-nine thousand eight hundred ninety-one and paise eighty-eight) in its RG-23A, Part-II in respect of the duty-paid i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransitional credit availed stood reduced to Rs. 4,84,72,285.50 (Rupees four crores eighty-four lakhs seventy-two thousand two hundred eighty-five and paise fifty) against Rs. 5,50,39,891.88 (Rupees five crores fifty lakhs thirty-nine thousand eight hundred and ninety one and paise eighty-eight). 5. Learned Counsel, Dr. Chakraborty also submitted that in terms of Rule 57H(4) of the said Rules, Modvat Credit under Rule 57H(1) could be taken by the manufacturer from the date of obtaining acknowledgement of declaration under Rule 57G of the said Rules. In the instant case, such a declaration under Rule 57G was filed by the Appellant on March 28, 1994, which was duly acknowledged by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on March 30, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant in March, 1995. With aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel prayed that the first Appellate Order is liable to be set aside for no irregularity that was made by the Appellant. 8. Learned S.D.R., Hitesh Shah appearing for the Revenue submitted that when the Appellant was not sure about the amount of transitional credit which is obtained from page 59 of the paper-book, learned Appellate Authority below had rightly passed the Order. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned Order should be upheld. 9. Repelling this argument, the learned Counsel submitted that Revenue was relying on the aforesaid piece-meal evidence at Annexure-VI appearing at pages 59-60 of the paper book, but that was a mere correspondence while the entire rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
