9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible on the date of receipt of the capital goods in the factory. Thus, we hold that there is no ground to interfere with orders passed by the authorities below and we uphold the same and reject the appeal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing duty pursuant to the amendment. The original authority disallowed the credit in excess of 75% to the extent of Rs. 2,39,96,904/- on the ground that the goods were received into the factory prior to 29-2-2000 as at that time the credit available was only to the extent of 75%. He has also ordered recovery of interest apart from imposing penalty as noted above. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal and hence the present appeal. 3. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the written submissions made by appellants wherein it is inter alia stated as under : (1) The capital goods were received in the factory before 29-2--2000 but were installed only after 1-3-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (6) The question therefore, arises whether the credit should be restricted to 75% on the date of receipt. 3.1 The learned Counsel also referred to the following judgments and submitted that the lower authority has failed to apply the ratio of the following judgments : (a) Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 557 (WRB - Mumbai). (b) Hind Spinners Industries Growth Centre v. CCE, reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 651 (NRB - New Delhi). (c) HEG Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 133 (NRB - New Delhi). (d) CCE, Nagpur v. DCL Polyester Ltd., reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 333 (WRB - Mumbai). (e) Hindustan Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 735 (ERB - Kolkata). 4. Smt. Bhagyad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there itself. If there is any change that arises subsequently by a Notification, which gives prospective effect, the appellant cannot claim any more credit on that issue. (4) The appellants' contention that restriction to the extent of 75% was not in existence at the time of installation and hence the credit should be allowed to the extent of 100% is not acceptable. The criteria to decide the eligibility is the date of receipt of capital goods and the assessee was eligible for 75% credit at the time of receipt of capital goods in the factory. (5) The restriction that eligible credit can be taken after installation of goods, does not mean that the quantum of credit varies with date of installation. (6) There are two aspects of elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the duty paid on the capital goods. (b) Rule 57Q was amended by Notification No. 11/2000, dated 1st March, 2000, when the limit of eligible credit was removed, which means 100% was available with effect from 1st March, 2000. The amendment removing the restriction of 75% does not have retrospective effect. (c) The appellants became eligible to the credit before the amendment with effect from 1st March, 2000, i.e. at the time of receipt of the goods into the factory. (d) The goods were installed on 6-3-2000 i.e. the capital goods were installed in the factory after the amendment came into effect, though these were received before amendment. 6. From the narration of facts and the facts as noted above, we observe that the only issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accessories especially in factories already in existence and specified final product manufactured and cleared. (e) Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 557 (WRB - Mumbai) wherein it is held that credit can be taken after receipt of goods. 7. We also note that that the appellants themselves in the written submissions have stated that "the moment capital goods were received in the factory, the credit was available". This undoubtedly means the assessees became eligible to the credit with effect from the date on which goods were received, though they may be taking the credit only on a later date when the goods are installed in the factory, as per their convenience. Therefore, the quantum that would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
