JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. The stay application and the appeal are taken up together for disposal, after hearing both sides, as the issue is covered by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Simpson & Co. Ltd. v. CCE vide final order No.563 & 564/2000 dt.28.4.2000.
2. The issue involved in this case is as to whether appellants engaged in the manufacture of Precured Tread Rubber and Bonding Gum are justified in availing the Modvat credit on the basis of certificate issued under Rule 57 E of the Central Excise Act beyond the limitation period of six months. The department relied on the Notification No.28/95 dt. 29.6.95 which fixed the limitation period of six months for taking the benefit under Rule 57 G of the Act. The appellants pointed out to the authorities that the said Notification did not apply to certificate issued under Rule 57 E of the Central Excise Act. The appellants also relied on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Simpson & Co. Ltd. v. CCE (supra). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has noted the Tribunal decision but has not applied the ratio. He has taken a view that the Notification applies to the provisions of CE Rules.
3. I have heard both sides in the matter, perused the notification and the Tribunal decision. It is seen that the Tribunal in Simpson & Co. Ltd. case in para 6 have clearly held that the certificate issued prior to introduction of time limit is required to be considered for grant of Modvat credit as the Notification does not have retrospective effect. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 5 and 6 are reproduced below:
“5. On a perusal of the order in appeal impugned, it is seen that these grounds were not submitted before the Ld. First appellate authority and theefore, the impugned order had been passed confirming the lower authority’s order.
6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I find that since Rule 57 G(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) dt.1.3.97, 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.”
On a careful consideration of the entire order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Simpson & Co.P.Ltd. (supra), I am of the considered opinion that there cannot be two opinion on the applicability of the above decision. The Lower Authorities attention was drawn to the Tribunal’s decision and however they have followed the same. There is no contrary judgement of the Tribunal to take a different view. Therefore, judicial discipline requires for following the ratio of the Tribunal decision. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the decision noted above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)