Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (9) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the determination of eligibility of credit as set out under Rules 57A, 57C and 57E . As such the criterion of allowing credit (by way of adjustment) as per Rule 57E takes precedence over the process under Rule 57G. Whether in this above regard, the Honourable Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Rule 57E is merely clarificatory in nature to Rule 57G ? Honourable Tribunal have held that Notification No.117/87,(ii) dated 15-4-1987 as well as other Notifications issued under Rule 57E are clarificatory in nature and hence would have retrospective effect. On the one hand, it is held that the condition of six months limit vide Notification No. 28/95, dated 29-6-1995 for taking credit did not exist at that time (1986-87) and hence the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, engaged in the manufacture of heavy vehicles, has been availing Modvat credit on inputs under the Rules in Section AA of Chapter 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules). Respondent was entitled to do so since the input received and the final product manufactured were specified under Rule 57A of the Rules. Modvat credit had been availed of and central excise duty paid on certain specified inputs. Subsequent to the receipt of such duty paid inputs, the manufacturer of the inputs was required to pay differential duty on the inputs and the same was paid on various date during the period from 21-4-1986 to 2-4-1987. Certificates evidencing payment of differential duty were furnished to respondent during the period from 19-12 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 89-MAS (NB) in the Tribunal challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals). In view of conflicting views taken by different Benches of the Tribunal on the question involved, certain other appeals giving rise to the same question were referred to Larger Bench. The appeal filed by the present Respondent was also so referred. The duty constituted Larger Bench heard all the appeals and disposed of the same by the common order No. A/1479-1486/96-NB, dated 31-5-1996 reported in 1996 (15) RLT 44 (CEGAT-NB) rejecting the contentions of the Revenue and upholding the contentions of the assessees. This order has given rise to the present application. 4.Section AA of Chapter 5 of the Rules contain the scheme of Modvat credit. On consideration of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund to manufacturers of inputs and did not contain a provision for variation of credit consequent on variation of duty and resulting in recovery of more duty from manufacturers of inputs and such a provision was for the first time incorporated in Rule 57E with effect from 1-3-1987 but this provision was applicable only if the variation of duty was due to change in classification of inputs on the basis of instructions issued by the board and was not applicable to variation of duty in the present case. A provision covering the situation obtaining in the present case was incorporated only by the amendment incorporated with effect from 15-4-1987. (h) The right of manufacturers of final products to take credit after obtaining acknowledgment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against the decision of the Tribunal. Proposed question No. (iv) is only repetition of the later part of proposed question No. (i). The bulk of proposed question No. (iii) also contains only arguments. The first part of proposed question No. (iii) is to be recast. We record the submission made by the Departmental Representative that the applicant has no contention that the new proviso to Rule 57G(2) is retrospective. 6.We are satisfied that the following questions of law arise for consideration and are required to be decided by the High Court. A statement of the case will be drawn up and reference made to the High Court. QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether Rule 57E of the Rules states expressly what is implicit in Rule 57G(2) and as such is c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates