Full Judgment
(2) Whether amendment vide Notification No.28/88(NT) dated 6.10.88 to Rule 57-I will have retrospective effect and the Government intend to regularise the past irregular availment of credit by amending the Rule? (3) Whether deciding the instant case by the Tribunal New Deli Bench-C in r/o modvat issue after the issuance of Notification 5/95 and 7/95 amending the constitution of CEGAT Benches and the allotment of business to each Bench, would amount of exceeding its jurisdiction and whether deciding the case when the jurisdictional bench has made a reference application to Apex Court on a similar matter which is pending, is a precedent which is not in conformity with judicial discipline normally followed by the jurisdictional authorities and fora 2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for purpose of this application are that the respondents had filed a declaration under Rule 57G on 6.3.86 for availing modvat credit. They also filed an application under Rule 57H for transfer of unutilised balance of Rs.94,245.84 from RG-23 Part II to RG 23A Part II. Permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 17.4.86.
However, it was found that the assessees had taken excess credit of Rs.67,594.34. Hence a show cause notice dated 26.12.87 issued to the respondents proposing recovery of the excess amount of credit. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand; the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal, holding that since the demand pertains to a period beyond six months, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is to be invoked and the Collector can decide the cases under Section 11A. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which held that the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act are to the read in to Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules as it stood prior to its amendment on 6.10.88, following the decision of the Larger Bench in the 1case of Brakes India Ltd. reported in 1996 (15) RLT 68. Hence this application.
3. We have heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR and perused the written submissions filed by the respondents.
4. We find that the question of law that arises from the Final Order of the Tribunal has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvar India Ltd. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 777 wherein it has been held that the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act is not be read into Rule 57-I of the Rules as it stood prior to its amendment on 6.10.88. Since the question of law raised by the Revenue stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court cited above, it does not require to be referred. Hence we dismiss the reference application of the Revenue.