JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to take the Modvat Credit in their RG-23A Part-11 register after a period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoices, when the inputs have been received by them prior to expiry of six months’ period and have been duly entered in the RG-23A Part-1 register.
2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the inputs were entered in the Part-1 register within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoices. However, the credit could not be availed by them and entries could not be made by them in RG-23A Part-11 register, inasmuch as the invoices were routed through banks and were released by them after the expiry of a period of six months. He also submits that what has been prohibited under the law is the process of starting of taking credit after six months from the date of issuance of the documents, and not the process of availing the credit. He also submits that the process starts with the initiation of receipt of the goods, which, in their case, has admittedly been within six months. He relies upon the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of its contentions:
(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Aurbindo Pharma Ltd. 2001 (127) ELT 786 (Tri.);
(ii) CCE, Hyderabad v. Crest Cables Ltd. 2002 (50) RLT 704 (CEGAT-Chennai);
(iii) Hanuman Chromo Coats Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal 2002 (47) RLT 728 (CEGAT-KOL).
3. Shri A.K. Mondal, learned JDR for the Revenue submits that Rule 57G(5) clearly prohibits taking of credit after a period of six months from the date of issuance of the invoices. Inasmuch as the credit has been taken in Part-ll register after a lapse of six months, the same is not available to the appellants.
4. I have considered the submissions made from both sides. It is an admitted position that the inputs were received by the appellants with a period of six months. The credit was availed by them after the period of six months on account of delayed release of the invoices by their bankers. The Tribunal in the case of Aurbindo Pharma Ltd. referred (supra), has observed that the time-limit of six months from the date of issuance of duty paying documents, is applicable to the receipt of the goods in the factory and not to the process of taking the credit. If the goods are entered in Part-l register and the entries could not be made in Part-ll register for some reasons and it has taken more than six months for the credit entries to be completed, there is no reason to bring any bar in Rules given to avail the credit. To the similar effect are the other decisions referred to by the learned Consultant. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned Orders need to be set aside and the appeal allowed on this count. A small portion of Modvat Credit of Rs. 1203.00 (Rupees one thousand two hundred and three) has been disallowed on the ground that the credit has been taken on lubricants under the provisions of Rules 57A, whereas the appellants should have taken the credit under the provisions of Rules 57Q. In any case the Modvat Credit is admissible to the appellants, either under Rule 57A or under Rule 57Q. Wrong quoting of Rule cannot make the assessee liable to pay credit. Accordingly, the said credit is also allowed.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned Order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.