Judgment:
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellant on various grounds.
2. The contention of the appellant is that credit of Rs.4615/- was disallowed on the ground that the credit was taken after six months from the issue of invoice. The submission of appellant is that the credit was taken during the manufacture of June 1995 and there was no time of limit prescribed during this period for availing the credit.
Rule 57G was amended by Notification No.28/95-CE(NT) dated 29.6.95 whereby the limitation of six months was introduced for availing the benefit of credit from the date of invoice. The appellants were not pressing for the credit of Rs.1415/- which was denied on the ground that duty paying documents were in accordance with the provisions of Notification No.16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94.
3. Learned Counsel submits that the credit of Rs.18,24,245/- was denied on the parts of machine as the parts are not covered under the definition of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide Vs. C.C.E., reported in 1996 (86) ELT 68, where the Tribunal held that the parts of machine are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. He further submits that the decision of the Larger Bench is affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of C.C.V. Vs. TELCO, reported in 1999 (31) RLT 800.
4. In respect of the credit of Rs.955.50, he submits that the credit was denied on the ground that the Tariff heading in respect of the goods were not mentioned in the invoice. He submits that this finding is factually incorrect. Tariff heading was specifically mentioned invoices, therefore, the credit cannot be denied. He relies upon the Photo copies of the invoices.
5. He further submits that the credit of Rs.5,38,549/- was deniep1 d on the ground that the credit was taken without any duty paying documents.
His submission is that the credit has been taken as a consequential relief in respect of orders made on the RT-12 Returns for the month of January, February and March, 1994 and this credit was allowed by the Supdt.of Central Excise. For this, he produced the copies of RT-12 Returns on which the adjustment was made and the credit was allowed.
6. In respect of Rs.3,29,908/- his submission is that credit was disallowed on the ground that inputs had not been declared. Learned Counsel producing the copies of the declaration whereby the inputs were declared. Therefore, he submits that the appeal be allowed.
7. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the finding of the lower authorities.
8. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Digital Electronic Telephone Exchange Equipments and were availing the benefit of MODVAT Scheme. The credit was denied to the appellants on the various grounds.
9. The appellants are not pressing for the amount of Rs.1,415/-.
Therefore the impugned order in this respect is upheld.10. In respect of the credit was denied on the ground that the credit was taken after six months from the date of invoice the credit was taken in the month of January, 1995 and before the amendment to Rule 57G to the Central Excise Rules, whereby the condition that the credit cannot be taken after six months from the issue of duty paying documents was introduced w.e.f.,14.9.95 as the credit has been taken prior ti the amendment and at the time of taking the credit, therefore, the appellants are entitled for this credit.
11. The credit of Rs.18,24,245/-was denied on the parts of machine on the ground that these are not inputs. This issue covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide Vs. C.C.E., reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 68. Further, this decision was affirmed by the Hon,ble Patna High Court in the case of C.C.E. Vs. TELCO, reported in 1999 (31) RLT 800. In view of the above decision if the Hon'ble High Court, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit under Rule 57A in respect of parts of machine.
12. The credit of Rs. 955.00 was denied on the ground that the Tariff heading has not been mentioned on the invoice. The appellants produced the copies of invoice. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for this credit.
13. The credit of Rs.5,38,549/-was denied on the ground that the credit was taken without any duty paying documents. The appellants produced the copy of RT-12 Returns where the Returns were assessed for the months of January, 1994 to March,1944. On assessment, it was found that the appellant paid more duty. Therefore, as a consequential relief to the assessment order on the RT-12 Returns, the credit was taken which was duty allowed by the Suptd. of Central Exicse. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied on the ground that no duty paying documents were provided by the appellant. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for this credit subject to verification by the Assistant Commissioner.
14. A credit of Rs.3,29,908/- was denied on the ground that inputs were not declared by the appellant in the declaration. The appellants produced the copy of declaration filed on 23.1.92 and 24011.94 where at Serial No.239 and at Serial No.7, the Invoice Core and Thermoplastic were specifically mentioned. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for this credit also. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
(operative part 1 this order was pronounced in court on 30.3.2001)