9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terpretation of Rule 57G adopted by the Hon'ble Tribunal is proper and just? (ii) Whether the Modvat credit which is otherwise available to the applicant-appellant, can be disallowed on the ground that the same was availed at later date and after a period of six months from the date of taking original credit? and (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in disallowing the Modvat credit which was undisputedly available to the appellant after a period of six months from the date of taking original credit?" 2. These substantial questions of law are stated to have emerged out of the order dated 5-12-1997 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the appeal filed by the dealer-respondent against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,788.60 was impermissible. The dealer was asked to show cause why the said amount should not be recovered under Rule 57(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the omission of the expression "specified duty" was deliberate and there was no intention to limit the credit of Rs. 800/- per M.T. where the credit originated from the payment of additional duty of customs. Therefore, while upholding the claim of the dealer to credit of the entire amount paid as countervailing/additional duty of customs shown in the Bill of Entry, it was held that as regards the question of allowing differential duty of credit after taking of original credit of duty, has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case. Expressing its opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation was prescribed by any statutory provision. The question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) = (2000) 5 SCC 299 has held that the period of limitation cannot be imported by the Courts by implication in the absence 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
