Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Surya Prabha Mills Ltd. vs Cce on 19 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(82)ECC362, 2002(149)ELT929(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. By this appeal, assessee is challenging the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 321/96 dated 17.5.96 by which they have been not permitted to utilize the modvat credit in respect of capital goods under Rule 57Q on the ground that in respect of some of the goods, the assessee had filed declaration after a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the goods. The goods were received from 1.4.94 to 13.10.95 and the declaration was filed on 18.10.95 and hence the authorities held that goods received within a period of three months from the date of the declaration alone will be eligible for the manufacture.
2. I have heard considered the submissions made by Ld. Consultant Shri. S Kandaswamy and Ld. DR Shri C. Mani.
3. It has been brought to my notice that the Board has issued a clarificatory Circular No. 199/93 dated 23.4.99 clarifying that the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT) dated 29.6.95 was issued whereby Rule 57G was amended providing that manufacturer is allowed to take credit of duty paid on imports within a period of 6 months of the date of issuance of any duty paying documents, as prescribed under Rule 57G of the C.E. Rules. The circular clarifies that this date of limitation does not cite any cases of capital goods as it may not always be possible to avail the credit within 6 months from the date of issuance of documents. I further notice that Tribunal in the case of Indian L.P.G Cylinder v. CCE Meerut 2001 (137) ELT 340(T-Del) has also held that where in cases of appellants availed the credit on filing declaration, revenue cannot say that credit was taken before filing of declaration and held that credit cannot be denied on that ground only. I have also perused the rules pertaining to availment of modvat credit in respect of capital goods. I do not find any restriction in the time limit fixed for taking the credit in respect of capital goods. In that view of the matter, the view expressed by the authorities is not correct and in keeping with the Board's circular referred to above. Therefore, the assessee's prayer is accepted. The matter is remanded to the original authority to re-examine the issue and grant benefit of modvat credit in terms of Board's circular. Ordered accordingly.