Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Alka Chemical Industries vs Cce, Mumbai-I on 30 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. E/80/2000-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/697/M-II/99 dated 17.09.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== M/s Alka Chemical Industries Appellant Vs. CCE, Mumbai-I Respondent Appearance:
None for Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 30.08.2016 Date of Decision: 30.08.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/697/M-II/99 dated 17.09.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. None appeared for appellant. Since matter is of 2000, we take it up for disposal even in the absence of any representation.
3. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.
4. The issue is denial of MODVAT credit to appellant on the ground that he has availed the credit beyond 6 months, as stipulated in the provisions of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We find that the impugned order has not considered the factual matrix in proper perspective. Appellant imported the goods and discharged appropriate duty. He is eligible to avail modified credit of the countervailing duty paid. While availing such credit he availed less than credit eligible, subsequently on his own noticing he availed the balance credit. We find that there is no dispute as to availment amount of the credit in first instance, hence availing differential credit subsequently is not barred or hit by the provisions of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This view settled by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Parasrampuria Synthetics Limited 2000 (116) ELT 581 (Tribunal).
5. In view of the foregoing we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) (C.J. Mathew) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Sp 3 APPEAL NO. E/80/2000-Mum