Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2001 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (8) TMI 910 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
The eligibility of Modvat credit of capital goods under Rule 57T(13) and compliance with the requirements of Rule 57T(1) and (3).

Eligibility of Modvat Credit:
The judgment dealt with the common issue of the eligibility of Modvat credit for capital goods, manufactured and purchased by different parties. The timeline of acquisition and filing of declarations by SKF Bearing India Ltd., J.B.M. Tools Ltd., and Autoline Stampings Pvt. Ltd. was crucial. The denial of credit was based on non-compliance with Rule 57T(1) and (3), which required timely filing of declarations before receipt of capital goods and within a specified period thereafter.

Compliance with Rule 57T(13):
The key contention revolved around the subsequent amendment of Rule 57T(13), which provided protection for cases where the declaration did not contain all required particulars or other requirements were not met. The amended rule came into force before the declarations of J.B.M. Tools Ltd. and Autoline Stampings Pvt. Ltd. were filed. The argument centered on whether the absence of any declaration at all fell under the protection offered by the amended rule, as interpreted by the Assistant Commissioner and the departmental representative.

Interpretation of Rule 57T(13):
The interpretation of Rule 57T(13) was crucial in determining the applicability of Modvat credit in cases where declarations were not filed or did not contain all necessary details. The judgment analyzed the wording of the sub-rule to differentiate between scenarios where partial information was provided in the declaration and cases where no declaration was submitted at all. Reference was made to a previous decision by the Larger Bench in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE to support the interpretation that the denial of credit in the present case lacked a valid basis.

Decision and Relief:
Ultimately, the Appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and consequential relief was granted as per the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the amended provisions of Rule 57T(13) for the eligibility of Modvat credit concerning capital goods.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates