CCE Vs. GUPTA RUBBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the denial of the modvat credit on a bill of entry to the respondents on the disputed amount for having availed the same after the expiry of prescribed period of six months under Rule 57 -G(5) of the Rules.

(2.) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed to modvat credit by following the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Bullow Paint Equipment (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 2001 (46) RLT 965, wherein it has been observed by this Tribunal that the provisions of Rule 57 -G(5) prescribing the period of six months for availing the modvat credit, on the modvat able documents, within six months, did not apply to the bill of entry. The learned JDR has contended that the bill of entry had been also mentioned as one of the valid documents for claiming the modvat credit under Rule 57 -G(3) and as such the provisions of Rule 57 -G(5) are not applicable to the same also for the purpose of claiming the modvat credit.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel has contended that the word 'issued' which has been used in a case of invoice under Clause (3) of Rule 57 -G missing in respect of the bill of entry and as such the period of six months prescribed under Clause (5) of this Rule, did not apply to the bill of entry. He has also referred to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Ozones Brockway (I) Ltd. 2003 (59) RLT 999 (T). The learned counsel has also contended that in case the respondents are found to be not entitled to the modvat credit, penalty cannot be imposed on them as interpretation of the Rule is involved. For this contention, the learned counsel has further referred to the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Manglam Cement Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (163) ELT 177.