2005 (5) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissal due to ex parte order, restoration of appeal, admissibility of proforma credit, Modvat scheme, delay in filing Modvat declaration, substantive right to earn Modvat credit.

In this case, the Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal due to an ex parte order despite the appellant's request for adjournment. The consultant for the appellant requested to set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal for a proper hearing. Upon review, the judge noted that the request for adjournment was not presented before the bench, leading to the dismissal without hearing the appellant. Consequently, the judge set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the appeal to its original status for further consideration.

Moving on to the merits of the case, the issue of proforma credit availed in May and June 1994 was raised. It was found that the proforma credit scheme had ended on 20-5-94, and although the Modvat scheme was introduced on the same date, the appellant failed to file the necessary Rule 57A declaration for Modvat credit and instead claimed proforma credit. However, the appellant did file the Modvat declaration in June 1994, albeit with a delay, which was subsequently condoned. Notably, there was no dispute regarding the duty paid nature of the inputs or their use in the manufacturing process. As a result, the judge concluded that the substantive right to earn Modvat credit should not be denied, especially considering the condonation of the delay in filing the Modvat declaration.

Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of substantive rights in earning Modvat credit. The decision was pronounced in court, highlighting the successful outcome for the appellant based on the legal analysis of the case.