Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1993(64)ELT302(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -II, bearing No. V-Adj (27) 15-533/86/1234 dated 28-2-1991, confirming the demand for a sum of Rs. 48,602.35 for a period limited to six months.
2. It is needless to go into the facts of the case, because the main issue to be considered is, whether credit of duty in respect of special excise duty paid on inputs, is available in respect of the manufacturer, who availed of proforma credit facility available under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector has denied the benefit of proforma credit in respect of the special excise duty paid on inputs on the ground that the notification issued under Rule 56A, proforma credit only refers to basic duty of excise, additional duty of excise and additional duty of customs. There is no reference to the credit of special excise duty available in the notification issued under Rule 56A. Hence, the Collector following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., held that the proforma credit of duty paid in respect of special excise duty cannot be given. However, he agreed with the contention of the appellants that the extended period is not applicable and hence confirmed the demand only for a period limited to six months. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order.
3. After hearing both the sides, we observe that the Collector has held that proforma credit in respect of special excise duty is not available only on the ground that there is no legal authority provided for in the notification under Rule 56 A, which refers only to basic duty, additional excise duty and additional duty of customs. All these duties referred to in Rule 56A are of permanent nature, which have been taken cognisance of in the Rule 56A itself. Special excise duty is levied on year to year basis through Finance Act every year and hence the requisite authority is required to be looked into the relevant provisions of the Finance Act read with the Notifications issued relating to exemption of special excise duty. We find that Notification No. 131/85 dated 24-5-1988 issued in regard to special excise duty makes it clear that wherever input exemption is provided for in respect of basic duty, similar benefit is also available for special excise duty. In view of this legal authority available, Rule 56A which provides for input relief for basic duty is also available for special excise duty.
Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief.