9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve for this modification, the appeals are otherwise rejected". As all the six appeals arise out of the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Filament Yarn falling under Heading 54.02. The appellants are taking the benefit of Modvat credit on furnace oil falling under sub-heading 2710.90 in terms of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules. The period involved in the present case is from Feb'98 to Feb'99 and the total duty involved in this case is Rs. 45,50,125/-. 3.The issue involved in the present appeals relates to the restriction imposed on Modvat credit on furnace oil vide Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, nothing contained in Rule 57A can govern or control the provisions of Rule 57B. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. G.M. Kokil - AIR 1984 SC 1022 held "It is well known that a non obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give an overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all the contrary provisions". Ld. Consultant further submitted that similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of South India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue - AIR 1964 SC 207. He submits that the specific findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned in such non obstante clause. In case, there is no inconsistency or a departure between non obstante clause and any provision, one of the objects of such a clause is to indicate that it is the non obstatne clause which would prevail over the other clauses". 7.Ld. Consultant then referred to some decisions of this Tribunal stating this Tribunal in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 645 following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. G.M. Kokil on the interpretation of the non obstante clause held that such non obstante clause is intended to override the other provisions of the Rules. He submits that this Tribunal further held that it is well settled that where the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final products or not……". He submitted that this position is further made clear by the explanation given under this Rule which reads for the purpose of this sub-rule. It is hereby clarified that the term 'inputs' refers only to such inputs as may be specified in a notification issued under sub-rule 57A. Ld. DR, therefore, submits that by introduction of non obstante clause under Rule 57B, the provisions of Rule 57A are not altogether given up, Ld. DR submits that in sub-rule (3) under Rule 57A it has clearly been set out that the Central Govt. may also specify in the said notification the goods or classes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded becomes very relevant for purpose of taking credit. He, therefore, submits that the authorities below have rightly held that Modvat credit on inputs viz. furnace oil to the extent of 10% ad valorem. will be admissible to the appellants. He, therefore, prays that these appeals may be rejected. 9.We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the various case law cited as also the two relevant Rules. We note that Modvat credit is generally admissible in terms of the provisions of Rule 57A. Rule 57A speaks of four things (1) description of the specified inputs (2) description of the specified final product (3) specified duty (4) restrictions, if any. We note that credit can be taken of specified duty. Specified duty has a spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to override the other provisions of the Rules. In the instant case, we find that non obstante clause is meant only to override the provisions in regard to inputs. We are considering the applicability of the term "specified duty" and thus the facts in the two cases are different. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Polymers was also dealing with inputs while deciding the issue here the dispute is not regarding inputs, the dispute is regarding specified duty. In Ballarpur Industries case, this Tribunal had before it the applicability of non obstante clause in Rule 57B held that non obstante clause in Rule 57B has to be read as intended to give overriding effect to some provisions of Rule 57A. There is no dispute about this finding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
