The Liquidator (Govt. Of India) vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 17 May, 2005
3. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the bar of taking credit after a period of six months from the date of issuing the duty paying document introduced vide Notification No. 28/95-CE(NT) dated 29.06.95 vide which a proviso to Rule 57G was introduced would also apply to the credit available under Rule 57E. The proviso to Rule 57G(2) is to the effect - "provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in first proviso to this sub-rule". First proviso to sub-rule 57G specify the documents on the basis of which modvat credit can be availed by an assessee. Certificate issued by the Superintendent under the provisions of Rule 57E is not one of the specified documents. As such, it becomes clear that the bar of six months does not apply to the certificate issued under Rule 57E. The reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Rule 57G is the core provision, which lays down the procedure for availment of credit as well as connected procedural matters and inasmuch as the documents forming basis of availment of credit as spelt out in the said rule prescribing a time limit within which the manufacturer must take credit in his books of accounts will also apply to rule 57E, does not appeal to me. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Utkal Asbestos Ltd, v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, reported in 2000(120) ELT 235 (Tri.) has observed in para 16 of its judgment as under:-