PADHMAM HERBAL CARE (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 161/2003 (Pondicherry) dated 14.5.2003 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that under the first proviso to Rule 57G(2) inserted w.e.f. 29.6.95, the time limit of six months has been prescribed for availment of credit.

(2.) Heard Shri Krishnakumar, in charge of the Stores of the appellant company who has filed a written submission in the Court today. He submits that they have taken the entry in the RG. 23A -Part I within one month from the date of receipt of the inputs in their factory that is to say before expiry of six months period. He, further, submitted that Invoice No. 3907 dated 4.9.98 of M/s. Bush Boake Alien (India) Ltd. in respect of perfume, a credit of Rs. 17,442 was availed in RG. 23A Part I on 4.10.98 and the credit was utilised in RG. 23A Part II on 4.3.99. Similarly, in respect of invoice No. 2546 dated 20.8.98 of M/s. Fine Organics Ltd. in respect of Mono Sterate, they had availed modvat credit of Rs. 4,651 on 3.10.98 by making the entry in RG. 23A Part I, whereas the modvat credit was utilised by them in respect of these goods on 22.2.99 by taking the modvat credit in RG. 23A Part II. Therefore, they have availed the modvat credit before the expiry of six months period inasmuch as they have made entries in RG. 23A Part I before expiry of 6 months. He, further, submitted that for utilization of modvat credit, there is no time limit and they can utilize as and when they have to clear the goods and such earned credit can be kept in credit for any period and no time limit is there for utilizing it towards payment of duty. In this connection, Shri Krishnakumar relies on the judgment rendered by this bench in the case of CCE Chennai v. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., vide Final Order No. 452/2003 dated 6.6.03 wherein the bench have held that there is no time limit fixed for utilizing the modvat credit after the same has been accounted and taken in RG.23A Part I within six months from the date of issue of the invoice. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the lower adjudicating authority asking for recovery of an amount of Rs. 22,093 under Rule 57 -I and of imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Rule 173Q of the rules ibid and the impugned order confirming the order passed by the original authority is bad in law and therefore the same is required to be set aside. He, further, submits that they had reversed the modvat credit of Rs. 4651 because it was a small amount and they request that they should be allowed to take this credit also in their Cenvat credit account.

(3.) Heard Ld. DR Shri C. Mani who reiterates the stand of the department.