Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in these appeals against order-in-appeal no. 33-35/98(m-ii) dated 13.2.1998, the short issue involved is whether the credit is to be denied if it was taken after six months from the date of receipt of certificate "a", when it was noticed that the original assessment had been revised and differential duty paid by the supplier of the inputs.2. heard sri j. shankar raman, learned advocate for the appellants and sri s. kannan, learned d.r.3. learned advocate submits that rule 57g(2) read with 57g(5) which introduced six months restriction of taking credit to the certificate issued by superintendent was introduced in statute book only with effect from 1.3.1997 and without any retrospective effect. since the period of dispute in both these appeals is of 6.9.1995 to 20.1.1996 and march, 1996 respectively, therefore, the provisions providing for six months limitations are not applicable to this period, hence the credit should be allowed.5. on a perusal of the order-in-appeal impugned, it is seen that these grounds were not submitted before the learned first appellate authority and therefore, the impugned order had been passed confirming the lower authority's order.5. on a careful consideration of the submissions, i find that since rule 57g(5) restricts the credit to be taken within six months from the date of issue of any documents, including the said certificate which was introduced vide notification no. 6/97-ce(nt) dated 1.3.1997, therefore, during the material time, this restriction was not prescribed in the statute. in such circumstances, the delayed credit taken does not suffer from any legal infirmities, therefore, the orders impugned are set aside and both the appeals are allowed, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Judgment:
1. In these appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 33-35/98(M-II) dated 13.2.1998, the short issue involved is whether the credit is to be denied if it was taken after six months from the date of receipt of certificate "A", when it was noticed that the original assessment had been revised and differential duty paid by the supplier of the inputs.

2. Heard Sri J. Shankar Raman, learned advocate for the appellants and Sri S. Kannan, learned D.R.3. Learned advocate submits that Rule 57G(2) read with 57G(5) which introduced six months restriction of taking credit to the certificate issued by Superintendent was introduced in statute book only with effect from 1.3.1997 and without any retrospective effect. Since the period of dispute in both these appeals is of 6.9.1995 to 20.1.1996 and March, 1996 respectively, therefore, the provisions providing for six months limitations are not applicable to this period, hence the credit should be allowed.

5. On a perusal of the Order-in-Appeal impugned, it is seen that these grounds were not submitted before the learned first appellate authority and therefore, the impugned order had been passed confirming the lower authority's order.

5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I find that since Rule 57G(5) restricts the credit to be taken within six months from the date of issue of any documents, including the said certificate which was introduced vide Notification No. 6/97-CE(NT) dated 1.3.1997, therefore, during the material time, this restriction was not prescribed in the statute. In such circumstances, the delayed credit taken does not suffer from any legal infirmities, therefore, the orders impugned are set aside and both the appeals are allowed, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.