Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commr. Of Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S Sail on 6 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(129)ELT641(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. The Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has filed the present appeal. The Commissioner has set aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner vide which he denied the benefit of modvat credit of differential duty paid by the respondents subsequently through TR 6 Challan in respect of inputs initially received under Chapter X but subsequently used for the purpose different than the one for which they were received. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Inductocast Steel Foundry reported in 1994 (74) ELT 579 which covers an idential situation. The Revenue has sought to distinguish the said decision on the ground that in that case duty was subsequently paid by the assessee on the direction of the Revenue whereas in the instant case no such direction was issued by the Department. In our view, the said distinction sought to be drawn by the Revenue is not at all relevant. The fact remains that the duty was subsequently paid by the assessee and the assessees are entitled to claim the modvat credit of the duty so paid in terms of provisions of Rule 57E.
2. The next contention taken by the Revenue in their ground of appeal is that the provisions of Rule 57E (4), which require Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of input manufacturer, to issue a certificate have not been adhered to. Shri B.J.Mookherjee, ld. Advocate argues that the said provisions was not in existence at the relevant time inasmuch as the period involved in the present appeal is 2.2.95 to 6.12.95 and Rule 57E was amended with effect from 1.3.97.
3. After going through the impugned order and giving our careful consideration, we agree with the above submissions made by the ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents. The issue involved is directly covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Inductocast Steel Foundry referred above which in turn relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the respondent's own case. it has been held in the said case that the provisions of Rule 57E are applicable even where the inputs were initially received under Chapter X procedure and covered under GP-2. As such, following the ratio of the above decision, we do not find any merits in the Revenue's Appeal and reject the same.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.