GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel products and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit and are also sending the material out side the factory under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules to various job workers. During the period 24.12.97 to 27.9.98 raw materials were sent out side the factory to various job workers and the goods could not be brought back in the factory within a period of 60 days as per the provisions of rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules. On 8.10.98, the appellants wrote to the Assistant Commissioner for extension of time beyond the period of 60 days as provided under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The extension of period beyond 60 days was declined by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that Rule 57F was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98 and the power to grant extension was omitted by this notification. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has not power to extend the time under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules after 2.6.98. Appellant filed appeal against this order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98 and the goods were sent to the job workers before this amendment. Therefore, the provisions of amended Rule were not applicable in this case. His submission is that when the goods were sent to the job workers, the Assistant Commissioner has power to extend the period for receiving goods back in the factory and this benefit cannot be withdrawn by the amendment as the amendment is prospective in nature and it is a settled law that provisions existing at the time of cause of action had to be applied. He relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Drinks Private Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Union of India And Another, reported in 1984 (18)_ E.L.T. 207 (Bom.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals, reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 1057 (Tribunal) and prays that the appeal be allowed.