Order No. 2487/98-WZB/C-II arising from in Stay No. E/RA-12/98-Bom in Appeal No. E/578/93-Bom. Case: Collector of Central Excise, Pune Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Order No. 2487/98-WZB/C-II arising from in Stay No. E/RA-12/98-Bom in Appeal No. E/578/93-Bom |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rao, SDR. |
| Judges | Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35G |
| Citation | 1999 (111) ELT 846 (Tribunal) |
| Judgement Date | November 02, 1998 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
Gowri Shankar, Member (T), (West Zonal Bench At Mumbai)
-
Following question is proposed in this application filed by the department for Reference to the High Court.
Whether the amendment dated 15-4-1987 in Rule 57E can be given retrospective effect from 1-3-1986 in absence of a clear cut stipulation to that effect and contrary to the express provisions of Rule 57E as prevalent from 1-3-1986.
-
We have heard the Departmental Representative on the application. Respondent is absent and unrepresented and requested decision on merits.
-
The question for decision before the Bench was whether credit could be availed of the duty paid by their manufacturer (in response to a demand from the department) on inputs which had already been cleared. The rule prior to its amendment on 15-4-1987 did not permit credit to be taken on duty paid in these circumstances and since the rule was amended credit taken on duty later was not available.
-
The Bench had followed the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (87) ELT 157. The reasoning in that decision was that Rule 57G itself provided that a manufacturer who has complied with the requirements could take credit of the duty paid on inputs and that therefore a right was vested by that rule upon the manufacturer to take credit also of duty paid subsequent to clearance of the goods from their manufacturer, consequent to the amendment on 15-4-1987 to rule 57E merely further clarifies the position indicating the procedure to be followed.
-
The contention in the appeal that the absence of specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial