Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Veekay General Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 May, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(44)ECR224(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. By this application the appellants seek waiver of prc-deposit of MODVAT credit of Rs. 1,12,822.53 directed to be recovered by the impugned order. The issue is whether the applicants are entitled to take notional credit permissible in terms of para 5 of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 read with the provisions of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules in respect of duty paid inputs i.e. refined copper wires used in the manufacture of their final product i.e. electric wires and cables immediately or subsequently. The credit has been denied on the ground that the appellants had taken the credit subsequently which was not permissible according to the Rules and we find that the Collector (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Lac and Paint Works Ltd. reported in 1992 (52) ELT 590 (SRB) : 1991 (33) ECR 329 (Cegat SRB) to build in a time limit of six months for taking MODVAT credit.
2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR for the Department.
3. The learned Counsel brings to our notice decisions of the Tribunal reported in 1991 (18) ETR 240,1991 (31) ECC 262 and 1992 (19) ETR 134 to show that it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that credit can be taken subsequently.
4. On going through the order relied upon by the Department it appears that as if the Tribunal has laid down that the six months period is to be treated as a reasonable limit and has not held that credit can be taken only within a period of six months.
5. In this view of the matter we allow the application. We waive the pre-deposit of the MOD VAT credit involved pending disposal of the appeal.
6. At this stage, with the consent of both sides we proceeded to hear the appeal itself. In the light of the discussions contained in the order granting the prayer for waiver of pnj-deposit based upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in open court).