Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Co. ... vs C.C.E. And Cus. on 8 January, 1997 cites

V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 December, 1983

In such circumstances the ratio of Tribunal decisions in the Mukesh Engg. - goods and in Ipitron Tiles (supra) would come into play for restoration of credit in Modvat account simultaneously against payment of duty by PLA debit of ineligible credit. The Bench in its Order No. 3036/96 WRB, dated 13-9-1996 modifying the earlier Stay order, has duly recognised this position when it was submitted before it that the acetic acid plant has since been commissioned and appellants had cleared acetic acid on payment of duty on PLA. In the light of the two Tribunal decisions, the Bench had decided that on depositing of the entire duty amount (in the case of Commissioner's Order dated 14-5-1996) the appellants would be entitled to take corresponding credit in their capital goods Modvat account, which credit can be utilised for payment of duty towards acetic acid. The records show that the deposit as per direction has been made.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mukesh Engineering Industries vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 20 February, 1995

6. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri D. Gurnard, ld. DR. The demand in these cases has arisen due to the finding by the Commissioner that the appellants had utilised Modvat credit earned on Capital goods meant for Acetic Acid plant and Hydrogen plant for payment of duty on final products other than Acetic Acid and Hydrogen in the manufacture of which the Capital goods in question had not been used. Ld. Counsel had urged that there is nothing irregular in this and points out that Rule 575(2) (already extracted above) allows utilisation of credit earned on any of the final products manufactured in the factory of the manufacturer and there is no dispute that appellants had included the other final products along with acetic acid in their declaration under Rule 57T. The further argument was that Rule 57S(2) is a specific provision which is clear on the point of utilisation of credit, and it should prevail over other provisions. In any case it was urged in these cases the entitlement to credit is not in dispute but only its utilisation. In this context it was submitted that since the Acetic Acid plant has since been commissioned and they have cleared it on payment of duty debiting PL account, the appellants will be entitled to use the credit in dispute for that purpose, and to that extent credit has to be restored in their RC 23C account simultaneously with this recovery of duty demanded. That such an adjustment has found favour with this Tribunal is shown by its decisions in the case of Mukesh Engg. Industries v. Collector - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 718 and Ipitron Tiles v. Collector - 1993 (21) ETR 380. It has also been submitted that in pursuance of this Tribunal's Stay Order as modified, this adjustment has already been made. As against this the ld. D.R. would argument in this case the basic requirement for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of use of the capital goods in the factory has not taken place at all as the Acetic Acid plant at the material time had not commenced production ld. D.R. pointed out the declaration provision in Rule 57T which has twin requirements of declaration of particulars of capital goods to the Assistant Commissioner and also of an intimation of the receipt thereof to the jurisdictional Supdt. This would show the nexus required between credit earned on capital goods and payment of duty on final products for the manufacture of which these have been used in this factory of the manufacturer.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1