COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. BRIGHT BROTHERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue has knocked at the door of this Court by invoking Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act), challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2003 (P -2) and order dated 9.2.2004 (P -3) passed by the Customs, (sic) Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, "the Tribunal'). It has claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:

(2.) THE detailed facts are not required to be given in this judgment in order to avoid repetition since they have been recapitulated in the judgment dated 19.12.2003 (P -2) passed by the Tribunal. However, the facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that the credit of Rs. 23,21,193/ - was denied on the capital goods pertaining to Invoice No. E -112 -A dated 16.9.1999. Similarly, credit of Rs. 1,49,06,078/ - was denied in respect of goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos. 321287 and 321298 both dated 24.9.1999 and Invoice No. E/4863 dated 23.11.1999. The denial of these credits has been made for failure to satisfy the procedure set out in Rule 57R 3(ii)(b) of the Rules.

(3.) PER contra, it was argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -Company that the benefit on Modvat credit goods can not be denied to them as they have purchased goods from MUL and MUL is a manufacturing unit and not a finance company, therefore, Rule 57R(3) of the Rules is not applicable in this case. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal regarding denial of the credit has been made for failure to satisfy the procedure set out in Rule 57R(3) of the Rules is not applicable in this case. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that sub clause in question was applicable in case of acquisition of capital goods wherein specified duty, i.e., modvatable duty, is also financed by a Financing Company. Learned Counsel has further contended that the transaction relating to Invoice No. 1128 dated 1.6.1999 was with MUL, which is not a Finance Company and therefore, provisions of Sub -rule (3)(ii)(b) of Rule 57 of the Rules can not at all be attracted to the transaction and finally, it was prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.