9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed in respect of any inputs may be utilised towards payment of duty of excise, - (i) on any of the final products in or, in relation to the manufacture of which such inputs are intended to be used in accordance with the declaration filed under sub-rule(1) of Rule 57G; or (ii) on the waste, if any , arising in the course of manufacture of the final products; or (iii) on the inputs themselves if such inputs have been permitted to be cleared under sub-rule (1)" 3. The proviso introduced on 16-3-1995 read as under :- "Provided also that, that notwithstanding anything containing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A and the Notifications issued thereunder the credit of specified duty allowed in respect of any inputs may be utilised for payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon in the case of HPCL is also not relevant and does not advance the case of the assessee for the reason that the issue in that case was the eligibility of Modvat credit to HSD oil excluded from the definition of inputs under Notification No. 5/94 as amended by Notification No. 8/95 but covered under Notification No. 11/95 extending credit to all inputs used in generating electricity used within the factory of production for manufacture of finished products, and HSD oil was also used in generating electricity. It is in this context that the Bench held that Modvat credit was admissible on HSD oil. The issue of retrospective effect of an amendment to a Rule was not the subject matter for consideration by the Bench in that case. 5. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al products for the manufacture of which inputs were intended to be used and the Bench nowhere held that credit was admissible for utilisation towards payment of duty on final products in the manufacture of which the duty paid inputs were never intended nor could be intended to be used. 6. We agree with the ld. DR that the proviso introduced with effect from 16-3-1995, extends the scope of Rule F(4) and it is an exception to the otherwise general rule laid down for utilisation of credit. This additional facility cannot he held to be retrospective for the reason that a subsequent enactment can be held to be retrospective only when the benefit it seeks to extend was already available on the interpretation of the existing legal provisions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
