SAIL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned order, Modvat credit of Rs. 16,80,000/ - has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the same has been taken after a period of six months from the date of issuance of Invoice -cum -Despatch advices by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. The invoice was issued on 29 -12 -1993 and the goods were entered into in RG 23A Part I on 10th January, 1994 i.e. almost after lapse of a period of one year. Accordingly, the authorities below rejected the Modvat credit and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - upon the appellants.

(2.) ARGUING on the appeal, Shri B.C. Devnath, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants, submits that their's is an integrated steel plant and they get raw material to the tune of tens of millions of tonnes through thousands of railway wagons through railway network. Sometimes, these wagons get de -linked and misdelivered to their other sister concern. Whereabouts of all the said wagons remain unlocated till the reconciliation is completed which usually takes a period of one year. He submits that on 31 -12 -1993, the appellants received 31 nos. of such misdirected wagons from Bokaro Steel Plant, a sister unit of the appellants. Though the appellants filed intimation to the Revenue as regards the receipt of such wagons under the invoice and the statement in D -3 filed with the Revenue, Modvat credit was taken only after re -conciliation formalities were completed. Inasmuch as the delay was not on account of any fault of the appellants, the benefit of the same should not be denied to them because admittedly the inputs have been received by them and used in the manufacture of their final product.

(3.) REFERRING to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Kusum Ingots reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 (TribunalLB) - 2000 (39) RLT 440 (L.B.). He submits that the said decision is not applicable to the instant case. He submits that the issue before the Larger Bench was whether in cases where credit has been taken after amendment of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules on the strength of duty paying documents issued prior to the amendment, the Revenue can deny the credit in respect of such document on the ground that credit has been taken after six months from the date of issuance of the duty paying document in view of the amendment of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the appellants availed the benefit of Modvat credit on documents after six months from the date of their issue. After amendment of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, the appellants are not entitled to such credit. He submits that the instant issue is distinctly different inasmuch as the appellants had taken the credit prior to the amendment of Rule 57G made on 29 -6 -1995. As such, he prays for allowing the appeal.