2004 (9) TMI 559 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing declaration under Rule 57G(5) and condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata involved a dispute regarding the delay in filing a declaration under Rule 57G(5) and the subsequent condonation of the delay. The appellant contended that although the declaration was filed after receiving the goods, there was a genuine mistake in not seeking condonation of the delay, emphasizing that the credit was availed only after the declaration was filed. The appellant argued that the substantial benefit under Rule 57A should not be denied due to procedural grounds, urging for the delay to be condoned and the appeal to be allowed.

In response, the respondent argued that filing the declaration was a substantive legal requirement, not merely a procedural formality. The respondent highlighted that the delay had not been adequately explained, leading to the denial of the benefit by the lower authorities. Additionally, the respondent relied on a previous decision in P.G. Conductors v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur to support their position.

The Tribunal examined Rule 57G(5), which allows the Assistant Commissioner to condone delays of up to six months in filing the declaration based on sufficient reasons recorded in writing. In this case, the appellants filed the declaration within the six-month period. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the request for condonation without providing any reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislation was beneficial and should not be denied on technicalities. It was noted that the Assistant Commissioner should have considered condoning the delay since the application was filed within the limitation period. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the decision in P.G. Conductors, where no declaration was filed by the appellants.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Orders-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, condoned the delay, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 30-9-2004 by Shri M.P. Bohra, J.