SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 609

N.S.HEGDE, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL
Osram Surya Private LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-In regard to the interpretation of the second proviso to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules ), two different Benches of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short the tribunal ) have taken conflicting views consequent to which the issue came to be referred to a larger Bench of the tribunal which by its order dated 11.7.2000 made in Appeal No.E/ 273/99-NB and other connected matters took the view that after the introduction of the said proviso, a manufacturer cannot take the Modvat credit after six months from the date of the documents specified in the first proviso to Rule 57G of the Rules.

2. Being aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the appellants have preferred these appeals questioning the correctness of that order.

3. Prior to the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G i.e. prior to 29-6-1995, a manufacturer was entitled to withdraw the said credit at any time without there being a limitation on such withdrawal. On 29.6.1995, second proviso to Rule 57G was introduced by substituting the then existing proviso and the newly introduced proviso read thus : "Provided further that th















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top