EICHER LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from Order -in -Appeal No. 68/2002 (M -I), dated 30 -9 -2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai rejecting the claim of the appellants to take Modvat credit on the basis of the supplementary invoice issued under Rule 52A/He has noted that this document was included as an eligible document only by Notification No. 51/2000 -C.E. (N.T.), dated 29 -8 -2000 and prior to this date, only the invoice issued under Rule 52A was a document for availment of Modvat credit.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants, ld. Counsel Shri N. Venkatraman submits that the Notification No. 51/2000 -N.T., dated 29 -8 -2000 was a clarificatory in nature and was having retrospective effect. This is the view expressed by the Larger Bench in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive v. CCE reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157. Ld. Counsel submits that in this citation Larger Bench has interpreted an identical situation arising under Rule 57E of the Modvat Rules. He submits that the Madras High Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Madras v. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd, reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 647 has held that additional duty paid on inputs by manufacturer thereof subsequent to date of receipt of inputs by assessee under erstwhile Rule 57E being a clarificatory and procedural, assessee is entitled to avail additional credit in respect of the additional duty paid on the inputs. Notification 51 /2000 -C.E. (NT.) had been issued under Rule 57E, therefore, the cited judgment would apply to this case.

(3.) Appearing for the Revenue, ld. DR Shri P. Devaludu, opposes the prayer of the ld. Counsel and submits that the notification does not have a retrospective effect and therefore, the view expressed by the lower authority not to accept the subsequent supplementary invoices subsequent to the clearance is a correct order and Modvat credit cannot be extended.