Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Western Bio Systems Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I on 2 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(149)ELT386(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. P/109/96 dated 27.2.1996 whereunder he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Satara, who rejected the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the declaration holding that the capital goods were received beyond the period of three months as such he was unable to condone the delay under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules. The assessee is a manufacturer availing capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. They filed declaration under Rule 57T on 9.3.1995 is respect of the goods received during the period from March, 1994 to December, 1994. By their letter dated 9.3.1995 they requested the Assistant Collector to condone the delay in filing the declaration. The Assistant Collector stated that the maximum period for which the Assistant Collector could condone the delay is two months from the date of receipt of the capital goods in the factory. Against that an appeal was filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 4 of his order has followed the judgment of the Tribunal in P.G. Conductor v. CCE 1996 (81) ELT 336 holding that filing of declaration is an outstanding requirement and that extension of time beyond two months cannot be granted by the Assistant Collector and he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Miles India Ltd. v. ACCE 1987 (30) ELT 64 that the officers exercising powers under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot ignore the provisions of the Act and Rules as they are the creatures of the statute. He also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in Suresh Coated Tubes & Sheets Ltd. 1995 (7) RLT 359 in which it was held that the Tribunal being a creature of statute do not have any power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. The appeal challenges the said order.
2. In the appeal stress was made of the reckoning of the time from the date of the factory ready to commence the production. This is not the way in which the Rules are framed. Intention to manufacture of the first time before the commencement of operation is a peculiar phenomena. I do not think the officers are to find out the substantive element viz. the intention to manufacture has to be found out to decide the question of granting modvat. The beneficial legislation can be availed of by a person only if the mandatory requirements of law are complied with. This is the view of the judgment of the Tribunal in P.G. Conductors. I do not think I can deviate from the order made by the authority below and there is no ground on which I could take a different view as the order passed is perfectly legal. The appeal has been decided in the absence of the party because in spite of the notice the party has not appeared.
3. Appeal dismissed.
(Dictated in Court)