ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The Appellants have been denied credit in respect of inputs directly sent to the job workers and received back as intermediate products in the Appellants’ factory on the ground that the duty credit on the input has not been taken by the Appellants within six months specified under Rule 56G(5). It is the case of the Appellants that the amendment to Rule 57G providing for six months time period was introduced on 29.06.1995 and the same cannot be applied to the goods which were sent prior to that date. For the remaining portion of the goods it is the plea of the Appellants that this was the transitory period after the change and though they had received the documents in respect of purchase of the inputs evidencing payment of duty they could not take credit of that till they received intermediate goods in their factory after processing by the job workers. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the Appellants states that subsequently the rule has been amended to provide nine months period in respect of such direct movement of the goods to the job workers considering the difficulty of taking credit within six months in such cases.
2. After hearing both sides and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since some of the goods have been received prior to the date of change i.e. on 29.06.1995 and in any case, since the remaining goods (Sic) were received soon after the transition to a new system, a lenient view in implementing the changed procedure is called for. Accordingly, since the payment of duty, utilization of the material and the documentation have not been disputed, we allow the impugned credit to the Appellants in respect of the disputed receipts of intermediate goods from the job workers. The impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Appellants for change of the cause title, with documentary evidence for change of the Appellants Company’s name, is allowed. The Cross Objection filed by the Department also stands disposed off.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court.)