INDUSTRIAL CABLES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was earlier known as Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), has sent the following questions of law for adjudication of this Court accepting the application of the dealer filed under Section 35C of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:

(2.) THESE substantial questions of law are stated to have emerged out of the order dated 5 -12 -1997 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the appeal filed by the dealer -respondent against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the duty demand of Rs. 22,83,788.60 was confirmed and credit of duty of insulated paper was restricted to Rs. 800 per M.T. in terms of third proviso to Notification No. 177/87. The differential credit claim made by the dealer was also held inadmissible.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned Counsel for the revenue. The principal question raised before us is whether a period of limitation of 6 months for availing Modvat credit during the relevant period could be introduced when no provision existed. It is relevant to mention that in the present case we are concerned with the period from 4 -1 -1989 to 1 -2 -1991. It is significant to notice that Rule 57G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1945 prescribing limit of six months was introduced on 29 -6 -1995 which had prospective effect. Therefore, it has to be concluded that no period of limitation was prescribed by any statutory provision. The question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. : [2000] 5 SCC 299 has held that the period of limitation cannot be imported by the Courts by implication in the absence of a specific provision made in that regard. The view of the Supreme Court is discernible from reading of few lines from para 13 of the judgment, which are as under: