Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Remi International Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 19 October, 2001
JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with consent.
2. Notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of modvat credit that it had taken on the ground that it was taken beyond six months after the date of issue of duty paying document, prior to the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G. Adjudicating upon this notice, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty demanded in the notice and imposed penalty. On appel from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amount of duty payable and confirmed the penalty. Hence this appeal.
3. The primary contention that the appellant had taken in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the credit was taken, not under Rule 57G but under Rule 57H. There is no time limit in the latter rule for taking credit, and the time limit contained in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G will not apply to the credit taken Rule 57H. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this submission. He has devoted himself only to consider the applicability of Rule 173H. This is possible. In the written submission that the appellant filed before him, it mentioned that the credit was taken under Rule 173H; an obvious error for Rule 57H. However this point was specifically taken in the memorandum of appeal.
4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed the impugned order set aside. Matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law, after considering the ground.