9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the credit on 24-7-96. Six months' time had expired on 06-04-96. The impugned order sustained the order of the original authority on the basis that proviso to Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER), laid down time limit of six months from the date of issue of any specified duty paying document to take credit on the strength of it. 2. The main ground taken in the appeal is that Modvat credit could not be denied when substantive conditions were satisfied. The appellants had taken the impugned credit on 24-7-1996, the date when the inputs were received in the factory. As per Rule 57A, a manufacturer could not take credit before receipt of inputs in the factory. As the inputs were received on 24-07-96, the appellants had 6 months' t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the apex Court to be a non excisable item. 4. The ld. SDR submits that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 (Tri.-LB) had decided that unless a manufacturer took credit of duty paid on inputs within six months from the date of issue of duty paying documents, the same could not be allowed. 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the arguments by both sides. It is not disputed that the appellant in the instant case took credit of the duty paid on goods received under an invoice dated 6-10-95 on 24-7-96. Credit was taken much beyond six months of the date of the duty paying document. As per Rule 57G(2) introduced vide Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-95, cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igibility of capital goods credit in a case where the Tribunal had found that the only failure held against the appellant to deny credit was that the relevant Modvat declaration under Rule 57(T) had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit of three months. In Sukam Gravures Ltd. v. CCE (supra), the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (A) allowing input credit on an invoice which was older than six months at the time of taking credit. I find that this case relates to transactions prior to 26-9-95. In F.O. No. 1478/07 dated 7-12-07 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.)] of the same appellant decided by this Bench related to refund of excess duty collected and returned to the customers subsequently by raising credit note. One of the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by the manufacturer of inputs from his depot; (c) triplicate copy of a bill of entry; (d) a certificate issued by an Appraiser of Customs posted in Foreign Post Office; (e) an invoice issued by a first stage dealer of excisable goods, registered under Rule 174; (f) an invoice issued by a second stage dealer of excisable goods, registered under Rule 174 duly authenticated by the proper officer; In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. CCE (supra) the Tribunal had decided as follow: "A manufacturer who is working under the Modvat Scheme can certainly utilize the credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product for payment of duty on such final product; but he has to take cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
