Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Ici India Ltd. vs Cce on 30 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(101)ECC307
JUDGMENT M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri R. Banerjee, Ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri N.K. Mishra, Ld. JDR for the Revenue.
2. Ld. Consultant for the appellants contended that the declaration was filed after receipt of the goods, but there was a bona fide error in not seeking condonation of delay in terms of Rule 57G(5) although credit was availed only after filing the declaration. He submits that it is a beneficial legislation and the substantial benefit under Rule 57A cannot and should not be denied on procedural grounds. He, therefore, submits that the delay in filing the declaration may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be allowed.
3. In reply, Shri Mishra submits that the requirement of filing the declaration is a substantive requirement of law and not merely procedural formalities. He submits that the delay has not been explained and, therefore, the benefit has been rightly denied by the authorities below. He also relies on the decision rendered in P.G. Conductors v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, 1996 (81) ELT 336 (Tribunal).
4. Rule 57G(5) empowers the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of sufficient reason to be recorded in writing to condone the delay upto six months in filing the declaration. In the present case, the declaration has been filed by the appellants within a period of six months. The request for condonation of delay was not considered by the Assistant Commissioner but the Assistant Commissioner rejected the request for condonation of delay without giving any reason. It is a beneficial legislation and should not be denied on shere technicalities. The Assistant Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay for which the application was filed within limitation. So far the decision in the case of P.G. Conductors relied upon by the Ld. JDR is concerned, the appellants did not file any declaration and the facts of the case are distinguishable.
5. I, therefore, set aside the Order-in-Original as also Order-in-Appeal and condone the delay and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.