ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. This is a Revenue Appeal. The brief facts in the case are that the appellants filed an application on 5-7-1996 before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Hyderabad requesting for granting Modvat credit of Rs. 2,42,073/- on inputs received by them during the period 16-3-1995 to 30-6-1996 under the provision of Rule 57H(1B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This sub-rule laid down that a manufacturer -who intends to avail of credit of duty in respect of inputs received immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration under Rule 57G, shall file declaration with the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner got the inputs physically verified and in his order-in-original, dated 12-8-1996 observed that in terms of these provisions there was a specific direction to grant Modvat credit in respect of the inputs received immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration filed under Rule 57G and lying in stock on the date of filing such declaration. He further observed that the Respondents had claimed Modvat credit even in respect of inputs received 16 months earlier, taking into consideration that the expression used under Rule 57H was “immediately before” and also the provisions of Rules 57G; he observed that a period of 6 months is a reasonable period and restricted the claim submitted by the Respondents and accordingly held that the Respondents were entitled to the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,68,952/- under Rule 57H(1B) in respect of inputs received by them during the period 4-1-1996 to 30-6-1996.
2. The assessee filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad vide his order, dated 6-10-1998, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Soft Beverages (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 66 (Tribunal) and in the case of C.C.E. v. Fidelity Systems (P) Ltd. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 463 (Tribunal), held that the scope of the expression “immediately before” used in Rule 57H (1B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been defined in the above cited decisions. He has observed that the case of the party is squarely covered by these decisions. He has further observed that so long as the inputs were in stock and necessary evidence of duty payment etc. were available, the benefit of the Modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner denying the Modvat credit of Rs. 73,121.32 was not sustainable. He, accordingly, set side the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal.
3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I have heard Shri Sreekumar Menon, SDR and Shri V.J. Sankaram, Advocate for the Respondents. In the appeal of the Revenue the reliance is placed on the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Mysore Lac and Paints Works Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590 (T) in which it is observed that the reasonable time to take credit is only 6 months subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions. The ld. Counsel for the Respondents, on the contrary, relied on the decision in the case of M & B Footwear v. C.C.E. reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 368 (T) in which it is held that there is no time period for taking the credit under Rule 57H provided. Therefore, no time period shall be applicable in respect of the Modvat credit availed under the provisions of these rules.
5. I have considered the submissions made before me by both the sides. The relevant provisions under Rule 57H(1) are extracted below :
“…(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57G, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may allow credit of the duty paid on inputs received by a manufacturer, under any invoice or any documents as may be prescribed; by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, immediately before or after obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration made under the said rule if he is satisfied that -….”
It could be seen, that the above provision started with; “Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 57G”. This would mean that the provisions under Rule 57H are not subject to the conditions and restrictions specified under Rule 57G for availing the Modvat credit. The restriction of 6 months for availing Modvat credit from the date of issue of the Modvatable documents, is prescribed, .under Rule 57G only. The same view is held in the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the lower appellate authority and also in the case of M & B Footwear (supra). In view of this position in law, there is no ground to interfere in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue Appeal therefore has no merit and the same is accordingly rejected.