COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MRF LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether the assessee is eligible to take 100% CENVAT credit on capital goods in the same financial year when the said capital goods are cleared as such.

(2.) WE have heard both sides. We find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees vide Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry. The relevant extract from the Tribunal's order are reproduced below:

(3.) The impugned goods, it may be recalled, were received in the factory and removed therefrom in the same financial year albeit in the year where the above provision did not exist. In fact the CENVAT Rules, 2001 is silent on as to what should be the quantum of credit that can be taken if the capital goods are removed from the factory as such. In the absence of such a provision it is possible to take a cue from the specific provision made in the subsequent Rules covering the situation. It is pertinent that prior to CENVAT Rules, 2001 which came into effect from 1-7-2001. Rule 57Q(1) permitted taking of full credit (100%) of the duty paid on the capital goods if such capital goods are removed from the factory wherein they were received in the same financial year. This position would therefore add credence to the theory that what was specifically allowed before and after should be deemed to have been allowed during the sandwiched period. I agree with the contention of the learned Advocate that the provisions 21 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would come into play according to which the provisions prevalent after 1-3-2002 and prior to 1-4-2000 would be deemed to have been in operation during the period of interregnum. The appellants are entitled to take hundred per cent of credit of duty paid on the capital goods received in their factory.