2004 (8) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Compliance with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing credit of duty on inputs held in stock during a specific period.

In this case, the appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing credit of duty on inputs held in stock from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. The appellant addressed the declaration to the wrong Assistant Collector, which caused a delay in reaching the correct jurisdictional Officer. The claim for credit was deemed unsustainable due to the delay in receiving the declaration by the correct Officer, even though the appellant had filed it on time. The Assistant Collector contended that the appellant would be eligible for credit only after the date of grant of the license, which was 2-4-1986. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that there was sufficient compliance with Rule 57G, citing a previous tribunal case where a letter addressed to the Assistant Collector and acknowledged by an Inspector was considered compliant. The appellant claimed eligibility for credit under Rule 57H during the transition period. After reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, it was found that the declaration, although delayed in reaching the correct Officer, was filed on time by the appellant. There was confusion regarding the jurisdictional Officer, as the appellant was granted a license for the first time on 2-4-1986. The lower authorities denied credit during the transitional period due to the delayed receipt of the declaration. The Tribunal agreed that officers should have had the opportunity to verify the declaration's contents, even if received late. Since no verification was conducted, denying credit solely based on delayed receipt was unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that there was sufficient compliance with the rules in this case. The delay in receiving the declaration by the correct Officer did not warrant denying the appellant's claim for credit, especially when no verification was conducted to assess the declaration's accuracy. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing officers the chance to verify declaration contents, even if received late, before denying credit to the appellant.