SYNTHETIC PACKERS (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed by the appellants with reference to respective impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Banglore.

(2.) SHRI K.K. Variar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that duty was demanded in this case amounting to Rs 3,91,714.32/ - He said that the party was entitled to take credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the instant case amounting to Rs 4,59,953/ -. He said that the appellants have taken credit of Rs 4,59,854/ - in the RG23A part II vide serial No 1 dt. 23.8.94 without the permission being granted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as contemplated as per Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also said that according to the Department, the appellants have applied for permission under Rule 57H to avail credit of duty paid on inputs received and utilised in the manufacture of goods prior to 23.8.94 to the rune of Rs 4,59,953/ -. However, the appellants have taken credit without permission of the Assistant Collector which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further they have not accounted for the material in the RG23A Part I Register.

(3.) HE also submitted that the appellants were under Central Excise control during the relevant period from 23.8.94 to 30.9.94, the payment of duty on captive consumption of lay flat tubings was made out of RG23A Part II credits and not from PLA. The assessment for the above period was also completed. He also submitted that it is pertinent to mention that duty on lay flat tubings was withdrawn vide Notification No 127/94 -CE dt. 5.9.94, if no input credit is availed under Rule 57A. He referred to a series of decisions in support of his contention that the appellants are eligible even non filing of the declaration and non maintenance of the RG23A Part I and Part II account where demand is fastened on the assessee for the past period and eligible Modvat credit on the inputs should be allowed. He referred to the following decisions in support of his contention: