Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 3 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Appeals are taken up for disposal with consent after waiving deposit.
2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asst. Commissioner that the appellant was not entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods that it received for the reason that appropriate declaration required in the Rules have not been filed by it. He has also imposed penalty.
3. The counsel for the appellant states that the facts in this case are identical to the facts that were before us in its own appeal in E/779/98. In the order disposing of that appeal, we had noted the claim of the appellant that a full list of the capital goods was enclosed to the declaration in general terms that it filed on 29.3.1994. We had noted that this contention was not considered by the Commissioner and had remanded the matter for considering the same.
4. Accordingly we allow these two appeals, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration by him of this claim after considering submissions in this regard that counsel for the appellant declaration will be filed before him a month from the receipt of this order.
5. Another issue that is involved in appeal 2980 is acceptance for the purpose of modvat credit of invoice issued by the manufacturer, which showed as a recipient Mather and Platt Ltd., but below the recipient name bore the name "account NCPL" (abbreviation of the appellant's name). Counsel for the appellant says that he is not disputing the department's claim on this account. Commissioner (Appeal)'s order is confirmed to this extent.