Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Keltech Energies Ltd., Udupi Dist, ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
S.S. Sekhon
1. This appeal is against the denial of adjustment of modvat credit under Rule 57E, as made by the appellant, on a certificate issued by the Superintendent dated 11.1.94. The denial is based on the ground that this adjustment has been made on 8.9.95, which is six months after the date of issuance of certificate by the Superintendent.
2. Heard both sides and considered the submissions mad.
(a) I find that the Supdt. has issued a certificate for eligibility of additional credit of duty on 11.1.94. The credit could not be taken in the year 1994, as submitted by the appellant since the certificate was received along with debit note of the supplier M/s Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers (a Public Sector Undertaking) only on 24.8.95 after receipt of same credit has been taken only on 8.9.95. The Ld. Advocate Sh. Monappa, appearing for the appellants relied upon the decision in the case of M/s Raguvar India Ltd reported in 2000 (118) ELT 311 (SC) to submit that there was no time limit of 6 months prescribed under Rule 57G at the relevant dates. The certificate by the Supdt, was issued or on the date on which they received the same. The amendment came in effect only on 1.3.97. I can not find any reason to read the six month time limit of Rule 57G introduced only on 1.3.97., in view of the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of M/s Raguvar India, relied upon by the appellant. The other decision replied upon is the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd, reported in 2001 (129) ELT 459 (Tri-Delhi), wherein it was held that credit during period prior to amendment of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 27.6.95 was not denial even if credit is taken 3 to 4 years after issue of duty paying documents. In this view of authoritative decision I find no merits in the contention of revenue to deny the credit, when law does not permit the reading of the time limit and the delay is on account of transmission of the certificate/evidence by the Public Sector Undertaking, and the appeal should be allowed.
(b) In view of my findings arrived after relying upon the decisions of Supreme court and the DB decision of Tribunal I find no merits in the submission of Ld SDR and her reliance on series of decision that the credit should be taken in reasonable time and reasonable time is within 6 months.
3. In view of my finding I would set aside the order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).