9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents on blow-room machinery. 2. Examined the records. The credit in question was taken on 1-4-98, i.e., after Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was recast under Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-97. Sub-Rule 7 of that rule required that no credit of duty on the capital goods specified under the Table to sub-rule (1) of the Rule shall be taken on a date prior to the date on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. 3. The appellant is represented by the ld. JDR, Shri C. Mani. There is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice. Reiterating the grounds of the appeal, the DR submits that the machinery in question was installed only on 11-8-99 and, therefore, the credit taken of the duty paid on the item, as early as on 1-4-98 was not admissible. He further submits that, though during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for allowing the appeal. 4. I am in full agreement with the argument put forth by the DR. The requirement of sub-rule 7 of Rule 57Q as the Rule stood on 1-4-98 was mandatory. This legal position is not contested before me. Going by the report of the Superintendent of Central Excise or the certificate of the assessee's Chartered Engineer, one would safely conclude that, as on the date on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
