Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Dharmapuri District Co-Op. Sugar Mills ... vs Cce on 24 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(92)ECR617(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. Credit of Rs. 90,000/- has been dis-allowed on the Juice Weighing Scale assembled by the appellants herein (who are manufacturers of Sugar and Molasses), on the ground that the parts of the juice weighing scale came into the appellants factory in December, 1994 and January, 1995, while declaration under Rule 57T was filed only in August 1995, beyond the period of 3 months which is the permissible period for declaration in terms of Rule 57T.
2. The appellants submit what they received were 7 Tonne weighing scale, the parts came in December, 1994 and January, 1995, but the weighing scale which is claimed as capital goods under the declaration, came into existence only in August 1995 and since the declaration was filed in August 1995 itself, no question of delay arises and the declaration has been filed within the statutory period stipulated under Rule 57T.
3. Learned DR opposes the prayer submitting that even as the goods came in December, 1994 and January 1995, they were kept in either CKD or SKD condition, therefore, declaration ought to have been filed immediately after receipt of the parts and having been filed only in August 1995, which is beyond the period of 3 months, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to invoke Rule 57T, therefore, justifies denial of credit and imposition of penalty upon the appellants.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The description of the capital goods in the declaration of August 1995 is "Juice Weighing Scale". From the above, it becomes obvious that the capital goods is being claimed as weighing scale and not as parts thereof. Therefore what we have to see when it can be said that the scale is received in the factory.
4.1. The submission of the appellants that the parts received earlier were assembled to form huge weighing scale only in August 1995, has not been rebutted by the revenue. Therefore, since the juice weighing scale came into existence only in August 1995, the declaration has not been filed belatedly, but has been filed within time, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the credit of duty paid on the weighing scale. Similarly, the penalty is not justified and is, therefore, set aside.
5. In the result, the impugned order of denial of credit and imposition of penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and Dictated in Open Court).