2005 (4) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of credit on M.S. Joist and 33 KVOC-OCB, delay in submission of declaration under Rule 57T(1) of Central Excise Rules, substantial benefit of Modvat, condonation of delay in filing declaration.

The judgment dealt with the disallowance of credit on M.S. Joist and 33 KVOC-OCB due to a delay in submitting the declaration under Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and due to ignorance, requesting the legitimate credit not be disallowed. The Appellant contended that the goods were received with proper duty paying documents, accounted for in their books, and used in manufacturing dutiable goods, thus the benefit of Modvat should not be denied on technical grounds. The Appellant cited precedents to support their case, emphasizing that the delay in filing the declaration should not result in credit denial.

The judgment referenced the decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, highlighting that credit should not be denied due to procedural lapses like late filing of Modvat declaration when there is no dispute about goods' receipt in the factory. The Tribunal's decision in Paharpur Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut was also cited, emphasizing that Modvat should not be denied for delays in filing declarations beyond the prescribed period. The judgment stressed that the substantial benefit of Modvat should not be withheld on technical grounds, especially when goods were received with proper documentation and used in manufacturing dutiable goods.

The Appellant's argument was supported by the Assistant Commissioner's discretion to condone delays up to two months for filing declarations under Rule 57T. Since the declaration in this case was filed within two months of receiving the goods, the substantial benefit of Modvat should not be denied. Consequently, the delay in filing the declaration was condoned, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the Appellant. The judgment concluded by pronouncing the decision in open court.