2000 (9) TMI 898 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Rule 57T(1) of C.E. Rules regarding filing declaration and taking Modvat credit.
2. Granting Modvat credit on DG set despite a delay in filing declaration.
3. Determination of whether questions raised by Revenue are referable to High Court.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal ruled in the final order that the dispute regarding D.G. sets being capital goods meant the question of duty liability did not arise until the matter was resolved by the department. The appellant filed the declaration and paid duty within the stipulated time after the dispute was resolved, as per Rule 57T(1). The Tribunal referred to previous cases like Genset India (P) Ltd. and Dalmia Industries Ltd. to support its decision.

2. Revenue contended that the declaration should have been filed within the time limit under Rule 57(2) of CER, and the delay of one year in filing the declaration was a clear contravention. They sought to refer two questions to the High Court regarding Modvat credit on the DG set and the timing of filing the declaration. The Tribunal rejected these questions, stating that the facts showed the declaration was filed after the dispute was resolved, and there was no misinterpretation of the rules.

3. The Revenue urged the Bench to refer the matter to the High Court for interpretation of the law, arguing it raised questions of law. However, the Tribunal found that the issues were factual and not legal, as the rules were interpreted based on established facts and previous judgments. The Tribunal concluded that the questions raised were not referable to the High Court, and the reference application was rejected.