Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S Sudhir Papers Ltd., Bangalore Dist. vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 September, 2001
ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva
1. The Asst. Commissioner has disallowed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,55,195/- on the ground that the appellant did not file declaration under Rule 57T as required under the statutory provisions of Rules 57T read with 57Q. It was the contention of the party that they received goods during the period April'94 to November'94 for which declaration was duly filed Under Rule 52-T on 23.12.94. The Asst. Commissioner did not accept the contention of the party and held that no modvat credit would be admissible on such capital goods which were received from April 94 to Nov. 94. Aggrieved by the said order, the party has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner as per impugned order held that the appellant has filed declaration within 3 months from the date of receipt of goods and allowed modvat credit with reference to amount of Rs. 2,47,683/- and held that no declaration was filed within the stipulated time with reference to Rs. 1,07,512/- and accordingly he disallowed the modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 1,07,512/-. Hence this appeal. The counsel submitted that the authorities below should have condoned the delay in filing 57T declaration and should have allowed modvat credit when there was substantial compliance of provisions of law. He also referred to the circular i.e. CBEC letter no. 267/8/96-CXD (83 ELT T.47) dated 7.3.96., in which it was held that "the matter has been examined by the Board and it is clarified that credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration has been filed after the receipt of capital goods. It should, however, be ensured that a proper declaration is filed by the manufacturer before taking credit of duty."
2. Sh. Ramasubramaniam, appearing for the appellant, submitted that in the present case the declaration was filed on 29.12.94 and the party took modvat credit only on 2.1.95. He said that in view of the substantial compliance, there was no justification to deny the credit particularly in view of the circular referred to above which clearly clarified the point at issue and the same has not been considered by the authorities below.
3. Heard Sh. Thomas, appearing for revenue.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration that the party has availed modvat credit only after filing the declaration and in view of the circular referred to above, there was no justification in denying the credit. In the facts and circumstances, I accept the contention of the party and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)