LAWS(CE)-2001-4-470

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Vs. C.C.E. CHENNAI

Decided On April 12, 2001
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Appellant
V/S
C.C.E. Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, the issue being common, pertaining to the same assessee, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. Appellants were refused benefit of Modvat Credit solely on the ground that they had taken credit as per the amended provision of Rule 57G(2) after 29.12.95, although it is admitted by the Revenue that invoices pertaining to the inputs received by them were prior to this date i.e. prior to 29.6.65. The provisions to deny Modvat Credit after six months period came into force by virtue of Notification No. 28/95 CE dated 29.6.95. The Revenue has taken the plea that the Notification will have retrospective effect in respect of the invoices issued prior to 29.6.95 and hence they are not eligible to the benefit of Modvat Credit.

(2.) The Assessee's contention is that the said Notification does not have retrospective effect and as the invoices were issued prior to 29.6.95 they were entitled to the Modvat Credit. The learned Counsel submits that this issue was referred before the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of TELCO vs. CCE reported in 1996 (87) ELT 157 and the Larger bench after detailed consideration have categorically laid down that the said Notification will not have prospective effect in respect of the documents and invoices issued prior to 29.6.95. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the larger bench judgement. He submits that in the subsequent cases the Commissioner has accepted their plea and granted the benefit and the Revenue aggrieved by the same, had challenged the said order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after detailed consideration and in the light of the judgement in the case of Ind -ital Chemicals vs. CCE reported in 1996 ECR 326(T) dismissed the Revenue appeal by final order No. 1297/2000 dated 18/9/2000 in the appellants' own case. He submits that the larger bench judgement and the judgement in their own cased will apply to the facts of the present case and the impugned orders are required to be set aside and the appeals allowed. The learned DR reiterates the departmental view., He submits that even prior to the amended provisions, the departmental view was that Modvat Credit has to be taken within a reasonable time and that the reasonable time was understood as a period of six months and although there was no Notification, yet the Tribunal in the case of Brakes India and others vs. CCE had held so. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding should be upheld.

(3.) In counter, the learned Counsel submits that the Brakes India case has been set aside by the larger bench and the Larger bench after giving a detailed reasoning concluded that there was no limit laid down earlier under Rule 57G(2) of the CE Rules, 1944 and the six months period was introduced only by Notification No. 28/95 dated 29.6.95 and the said Notification will not have retrospective effect. Therefore, he submits that judgement in the case of Brakes India was over ruled by the larger bench judgement, in their own case in the cited judgement.