Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. General Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jaipur on 8 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT109(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel products and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit and are also sending the material out side the factory under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules to various job workers. During the period 24.12.97 to 27.9.98 raw materials were sent out side the factory to various job workers and the goods could not be brought back in the factory within a period of 60 days as per the provisions of rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules. On 8.10.98, the appellants wrote to the Assistant Commissioner for extension of time beyond the period of 60 days as provided under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The extension of period beyond 60 days was declined by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that Rule 57F was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98 and the power to grant extension was omitted by this notification. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has not power to extend the time under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules after 2.6.98. Appellant filed appeal against this order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98 and the goods were sent to the job workers before this amendment. Therefore, the provisions of amended Rule were not applicable in this case. His submission is that when the goods were sent to the job workers, the Assistant Commissioner has power to extend the period for receiving goods back in the factory and this benefit cannot be withdrawn by the amendment as the amendment is prospective in nature and it is a settled law that provisions existing at the time of cause of action had to be applied. He relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Drinks Private Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Union of India And Another, reported in 1984 (18)_ E.L.T. 207 (Bom.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals, reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 1057 (Tribunal) and prays that the appeal be allowed.
4. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that appellants applied for extension of time on 8.10.98 and the provisions of rule as exists on that date will be applicable. He relies upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, Final Order No. A/583-86/2000-NB(DB) dated 11.7.2000 and submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that after the amendment of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, the credit can be taken within six months from the issue of the duty paying documents even in the case where the duty paying documents relates prior to the amendment. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard both sides.
6. In this case the appellant filed an application on 8.10.98 asking for extension of time in respect of the goods sent to the job workers. rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98. Prior to this amendment, the Assistant Commissioner was competent to extend the period in respect of the goods sent to the job workers. After this amendment, this power was withdrawn. Therefore, on the date of application filed by the appellants, the Assistant Commissioner has no power to extend the time in respect of the goods sent to the job workers. Appellant relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Drinks Private Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Union of India and Another (Supra) where the Hon'ble High Court held that amended provisions of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules are not retrospective in nature and are not applicable in the case of refund claim pertaining to the period prior to the amendment. This view was not found favour with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that amended provisions of Section 11 are retrospective in nature and are applicable in pending refund claims also. The appellants also relied upon the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals (Supra). In this case the Tribunal held that when the case was decided before the amendment to Rule where the period of limitation was reduced from two years to one year, the period of limitation of two year will be applicable. The facts of the present case are different. In this case the appellants asking for benefit on 8.10.98 and on that date, the Assistant Commissioner has no power to grant that benefit. The Tribunal in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (Supra) relied upon by the Revenue held that the amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, the manufacturer can avail the benefit of credit within six months from the date of issuance of duty paying documents even though the documents pertains to the period earlier to the amendment. The ratio of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.