Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Hegel Capsules Inds. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Hegel Capsules Inds. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 30, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/23502

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/23502
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 30, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Hegel Capsules Inds. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....appeal.2. the notice dated 23.12.1994 issued to the manufacturer proposed recovery of modvat credit taken by it in june, 1994 on the ground that the gate passes in question were issued in the name of persons on whose behalf the appellant was manufacturing goods as a job worker. the manufacturer appealed this order. the commissioner (appeals) found that on merits the manufacturer is entitled to the credit. he also found that the notice was barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of 6 months specified under rule 571 the extended period contained in proviso under rule 57i(ii) not having been invoked. both these conclusions are challenged in the appeal.3. i will first take up the issue of limitation. the assistant collector refused to accept this plea on the ground that the notice was within the period of limitation contained in section 11a of the act.this is what is relied upon in the department's appeal.4. this contention is not acceptable. during the relevant period with which we are concerned rule 57i itself contained a time limit, to be calculated from the date of taking the credit, of six months and extended period of five years in appropriate cases. in that situation it was not permissible to rely upon the method of computing the date provided under section 11a, from the date on which the rt12 return is filed or if it is not filed from the date on which it is to be filed.in applying the provisions of rules 57i the authorities are bound by the provisions contained in that rule. they cannot rely on provisions contained in other rules. the decisions of the tribunal in cce vs. agro transformers co. pvt. ltd. 1990 (49) elt 638 and cce vs. bharal containers pvt. ltd. 1990 (48) elt 520 are related to cases where credit was taken prior to amendment to rule 57i on 6.10.1988, during a period under rule 57i did not prescribe any time limit for issue of notice. the tribunal in these two decisions therefore held that the period of limitation contained.....

Full Judgment

1. The respondent requests adjournment on the ground that its "advocate is out of station and he is not available on 30.5.2001 due to some urgent Court matter". No vakalatnama of any advocate has been filed and who the advocate is and where he is busy is not stated. I therefore decline to adjourn. Having heard the departmental representative and considered the papers, I proceed to decide the appeal.

2. The notice dated 23.12.1994 issued to the manufacturer proposed recovery of modvat credit taken by it in June, 1994 on the ground that the gate passes in question were issued in the name of persons on whose behalf the appellant was manufacturing goods as a job worker. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that on merits the manufacturer is entitled to the credit. He also found that the notice was barred by limitation having been issued beyond the period of 6 months specified under Rule 571 the extended period contained in proviso under Rule 57I(ii) not having been invoked. Both these conclusions are challenged in the appeal.

3. I will first take up the issue of limitation. The Assistant Collector refused to accept this plea on the ground that the notice was within the period of limitation contained in Section 11A of the Act.

This is what is relied upon in the department's appeal.

4. This contention is not acceptable. During the relevant period with which we are concerned Rule 57I itself contained a time limit, to be calculated from the date of taking the credit, of six months and extended period of five years in appropriate cases. In that situation it was not permissible to rely upon the method of computing the date provided under Section 11A, from the date on which the RT12 return is filed or if it is not filed from the date on which it is to be filed.

In applying the provisions of Rules 57I the authorities are bound by the provisions contained in that rule. They cannot rely on provisions contained in other rules. The decisions of the Tribunal in CCE Vs. Agro Transformers Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (49) ELT 638 and CCE Vs. Bharal Containers Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (48) ELT 520 are related to cases where credit was taken prior to amendment to Rule 57I on 6.10.1988, during a period under Rule 57I did not prescribe any time limit for issue of notice. The Tribunal in these two decisions therefore held that the period of limitation contained in Section 11A of the Act, would apply.

The ratio of these two decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts in this appeal. By the amendment made on 6.10.1988 the time limit of six months (and 5 years in appropriate cases) to be computed from the date of taking credit was incorporated in Rule 57I. It would be improper to apply, while in considering the amendment rule, the ratio of the two decisions of the Tribunal. I therefore decline to interfere.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Hegel Capsules Inds. Ltd. Same Subject Excise