ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had taken input duty credit of Rs. 21/423/ - on 27 -2 -1996 on the strength of invoice dated 31 -1 -1995. They had also taken input duty credit of Rs. 1,087.97 on 5 -2 -1996 on the strength of invoice dated 23 -12 -1995. The credit of Rs. 21,423/ - was disallowed by the lower authorities on the ground that the credit taken was time -barred under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As regards the credit of Rs. 1,087.97, the same was disallowed on the ground that the input covered under the relevant invoice was not consigned to the appellants. Appeal No. E/3817/98 is against the denial of these credits.

(2.) IN respect of the countervailing duty (CVD) [Rs. 16,48,659/ -] paid on inputs imported and cleared under two Bills of Entry dated 11 -2 -1994, the appellants had taken Modvat credit on 11 -12 -1995. This credit was also disallowed by the lower authorities on the ground of time bar under Rule 57G ibid. Hence Appeal No. E/3816/1998. Heard both sides. In respect of the credit of Rs. 21,423/ - ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that this credit had been taken on input received in their factory before a period of limitation was prescribed under Rule 57G for availing input duty credit and therefore the availment of credit on such input was not liable to be held time -barred. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in TELCO v. Commissioner - -1996 (87) E.L.T. 157 (T), wherein it had been held that the amendment brought to Rule 57G on 29 -6 -1995 laying down period of limitation for taking input duty credit had no retrospective effect. As regards the credit of Rs. 1,087.97, it was submitted that, in the relevant invoice dated 23 -12 -1995, the consignee's name had been erroneously mentioned as M/s. Lakshmi Machineries Ltd. instead of M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. The credit should not have been denied on the ground stated by the lower authorities inasmuch as they had no case that the input was not duty -paid or it had not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In respect of the credit of CVD taken on the basis of the two Bills of Entry, ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions and argued that the period of six months prescribed under Rule 57G(2) for taking input duty credit was not to be computed from the date of filing of the Bill of Entry : -

(3.) LD . JDR submitted that the credit of Rs. 21,423/ - taken 27 -2 -1996, after a proviso laying down period of limitation of six months for taking input duty credit was added to Rule 57G(2) by Notification No. 28/95 -C.E. (N.T.), dated 29 -6 -1995, was taken beyond the said period of limitation and the same was rightly disallowed by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. Ld. DR in this connection relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 (Tri. -LB) and the Supreme Court's judgment in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner - . In respect of the credit of Rs. 1,087.97, it was submitted by the DR that there was no evidence of M/s. Lakshmi Machineries Ltd. not having taken the credit on the strength of the relevant invoice in which their name had been shown as the consignee of the goods. As regards the credits of CVD, the DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).