ROLLATAINERS LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Appeal No. 748/98 -CE dated 10.10.1998 confirming the Order -in -Original No. 106/98 dated 19.1.1998/24.2.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The duty amount involved is Rs. 37,178/ -. The appellants had availed Modvat credit of this amount on 30.5.1995 on the Gate passes issued on 2.12.1993. The Department stand that they cannot take benefit after a considerable lapse of time and availment of Modvat Credit is not in keeping with Notfn. No. 16/94 -CE(NT) dated 30.3.1994. The appellant had explained that the goods had been removed to the Job worker under Rule 57F for the purpose of carrying out certain processing. The Department had granted permission for removing the goods to the job worker and as there was delay by the Job worker in processing the goods, the appellants had availed permission from Range Superintendent for extension of time limit prescribed for the process and return of the goods in question from time to time and the same had been granted. The job worker processed the goods and completed the final delivery of goods on 3.541995 and availed the credit on 30.5.1995 under RG -23A Part II based on the Gate pass received from the job worker. It is stated that the taking of Modvat credit has been in due compliance of Rule 57F(2) and the said Rule does not lay down any time limit for taking the credit. It is also stated that there is no violation of any Rule and the Department themselves had granted permission for taking of the goods for job worker and extension had been obtained from time to time.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel submits that the issue is covered by the judgement in a similar case rendered by the Tribunal in CCE v. Anand Transformers (P) Ltd., as wherein similar question arose where there was a delay in return of intermediate products of job worker and the authorities had taken a view that the invoice cannot be accepted under Notfn. 16/94. The Tribunal held that there is no time limit prescribed in Rule 57F and credit is not deniable for not strictly following time limit prescribed under Notification No. 16/94 -CE(NT) since the notification does not have over -riding effect for procedural requirement laid in Rule 57F read with Rule 571 of the CE Rules, 1944. 3. Learned SDR submits that credit ought to have been taken within 6 months in respect of original inputs and this is the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of MRF Limited v. CCE as which is binding on this Bench. He submits that the judgement of CCE v. Anand Transformers (P) Ltd., is distinguishable. He further relies on the judgement of Tumkur Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE as wherein it has been held that invoice of substituted document of gate pass after 1.4.1994 could be utilised only up to 30.6.1994 and not beyond that. 4. On a careful consideration of the submission, 1 notice that the judgement cited by Learned SDR is distinguishable as it does not pertain to removal of goods under Rule 57F for processing by a job worker but pertains to Rule 57A. The Tribunal already distinguished the fact in the case of Anand Transformers (P) Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has held that there is no time limit prescribed for utilising Modvat Credit for removal of goods for job work under Rule 57F of the Act and the Tribunal has also held that Notfn. 16/94 does not have over -riding effect of procedural requirements laid down in Rule 57F read with Rule 571 of CE Rules, 1944. In that view of the matter, the judgement of CCE v. Anand Transformers (P) Ltd., would directly apply to the facts of the present case and following the same, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.