Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Hematic Motors P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(91)ELT592(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. The brief facts of the case are as below:
The appellants took Modvat credit in respect of certain inputs received under the subsidiary Gate Pass cum certificate. The goods were improted by M.M.T.C. and countervailing was paid on the goods between 11-12-1984 to 21-12-1984. In respect of these goods, M.M.T.C. issued a certificate in favour of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. who in turn sold the goods to the appellants against the subsidiary gate pass, on the basis of which Modvat credit was taken after filing the declaration. However, this was objected to by the Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that duty has been paid in respect of the inputs prior to 31-1-1986 and hence the credit taken was sought to be disallowed. On adjudication by the Asstt. Commissioner, the matter was pursued before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the Asstt. Commissioner. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Shri Gaikwad, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants, pleads that the restriction that the inputs should have suffered duty on or after 31-1-1986 is prescribed only in Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules. In their case, they filed declaration under Rule 57G and thereafter inputs were received against subsidiary gate passes which are the prescribed documents as per the Board's notification. Hence, they are entitled to take the credit of duty under Rule 57A itself without resorting to Rule 57H. Hence, credit cannot be disallowed by applying Rule 57H in their case.
3. After hearing both the sides, Modvat credit scheme is consisting of a numbers of Rules. All the rules are to be read together for purpose of extending the benefit under the scheme. This is the view which has been held by this Bench. Gujarat High Court in the case of Torrent Laboratories have also held that the scheme has to be read as a whole and it is an independent scheme by itself. Hence, I am not pursuaded to accept the ld. Advocate's contention that Rule 57A can be read de hors Rule 57H. The extension of credit in respect of inputs lying in stock and are floating in the market prior to introduction of Modvat credit has been restricted to a cut off date viz. 31-1-1986. In this case there is no dispute that the inputs have suffered duty in the year 1984 and after lying in the market channel for a considerable period are reported to have been received. When the cut off date is prescribed even in respect of inputs lying in stock prior to the filing of declaration, it cannot be held that the cut off date would not be applicable in respect of inputs received after filing declaration. Interpretation of Rules cannot be given in a disjointed manner but has to be given by reading the sheme as a whole. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below.
4. Shri Gaikwad, however, pleads that if the actual credit of duty is not available, they would be eligible for deemed Modvat credit having regard to the fact that the inputs have suffered duty and to the extent of deemed Modvat credit, they should be given the benefit. It is open for them to approach the authority for claiming the deemed Modvat credit. Since this is not an issue before me, no opinion is expressed on this request.