Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Sharp Industrial Limited on 29 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(101)ELT503(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh, ld. JDR, who has reiterated the grounds of appeal and contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in extending the benefit of transitional provisions under Rule 57H for taking of Modvat credit to the Respondents in this case. The Department case is that the Respondents had on their own taken credit of the stock lying with them after filing declaration without getting permission granted by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for the purpose under Rule 57H. The taking of such credit therefore is at variance with the statutory provisions of that Rule.
2. Shri Nitin N. Mehta the Authorised Representative for the Respondents, however submits that the respondents did apply for transitional provisions for taking credit along with their declaration and because of the delay, the grant in the permission they had taken credit and the ld. Consultant cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Aqueous Victuals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (84) E.L.T. 366 (Tribunal) and Mahalakshmi Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 427 (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal had held that inputs lying in stock, Modvat credit thereon can be taken if there is delay in granting the permission after the assessee has made the application for the purposes before the Assistant Commissioner.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that in the present case there is evidence to show that there was an application with the statement of inputs lying in stock before the Assistant Commissioner and we also find that only ground of which the Assistant Commissioner in a de novo proceedings had denied the credit under Rule 57H is on the ground that respondents have contravened the provisions of Rule 57H by taking credit themselves without obtaining prior permission from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. This view however, does not find support in the Tribunal decisions cited and relied upon (supra) by the Respondents. We find that the transitional facility for taking credit on input lying in stock under Rule 57H cannot be denied only on the ground that the assessee has taken credit before the permission on such application has been granted especially when there is delay in the granting of the permission. Moreover this is not a case where it is disputed that the inputs are not eligible input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In these circumstances following the ratio of the Tribunal decisions, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.