9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansitional provision in the Rules, vide Rule No. 57H was introduced, which reads as under : "57H(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57F, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may allow credit of the duty paid on inputs received by a manufacturer before .filing a declaration under Rule 57G if he is satisfied that- (a) such inputs are lying in stock or are received in the factory on or after the 1st day of March, 1986, or (b) such inputs are used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory on or after the 1st day of March, 1986, and that no credit has been taken by the manufacturer in respect of such inputs under any other rule or notification : Provided that no credit under this sub-rule shall be allowed in respect of inputs received on or after the 1st day of April, 1986." Thereafter this transitional provision was substituted by the Central Excise (First Amendment) Rules, 1987 with effect from 1-3-1987 vide Notification No. 25/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, which reads as under : "57H.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57G, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may allow credit of the duty paid on inputs received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 57G, and the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products which are cleared from the factory on or before 1st March, 1987. It was further held that mere mention of the date 1st March, 1987 does not indicate that the credit can be allowed on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product which have been cleared from the factory and as such the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained in respect of those inputs which were not available for verification. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners have again come up in these petitions before this Court. 4. A preliminary objection was raised in respect of tenability of the petition in view of the fact of availability of the alternative remedy. But this objection has no force in view of the fact that this petition is already admitted and has come up for final decision. Furthermore the period of appeal has also expired during the pendency of this petition. This Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [1987 (32) E.L.T. 489 (M.P.)] has held that when the petitioners have again directly approached the Court and the petition was entertained, at this stage when the period of filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in stock, acceptance of such an argument would result in making the provision of second clause of Rule 57H nugatory. It appears that the purpose behind the Rule was to give credit both to the inputs which were lying in stock for verification and also those inputs which were already used in the manufacture of the goods which were cleared from the factory on or after 1st day of March, 1987. The clear language of the Rule does not admit of any other interpretation than the one which gives benefit in both the cases. 7. In the instant case the petitioners after having filed a declaration under Rule 57G on 12-12-1988, also filed an application with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise-Div. II, Indore seeking the benefit under Rule 57H in respect of those inputs which were utilised in the manufacture of final products cleared from the factory on or after 1-3-1987. As such the benefit claimed was for the goods which were actually used in the manufacture of final products cleared from the factory on or after 1st March, 1987 as well as for those goods which were to be used as inputs and were received in the factory and lying in stock. The Assistant Collector, however, disallowed the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration is filed by the manufacturers claiming the credit, that declaration has to be considered in the light of the record available with the Central Excise Authorities. It is not the case of the Central Excise authorities that the details of the inputs which are already used for manufacturing the goods cleared by the authorities on 1-3-1987 and after are not available with them. They have actually been filed by the petitioners along with the applications as is manifest from the petition and that fact has not been denied or disputed by the authorities. Therefore, on the basis of those details the credit should always be given to the manufacturers after verification of the inputs used for the manufacture of the goods cleared on 1-3-1987 and thereafter. But it seems that the authorities concerned have not cared to look into this aspect of the matter. The credit has been allowed only on those goods which were lying, in stock as per the first clause of Rule 57H of the MODVAT Rules. The authority has not cared to look into the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of Rule 57H of the Rules which clearly provides for allowing the credit for the inputs which have been consumed for manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
