2006 (3) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to credit for duty paid items received for setting up a boiler.
2. Whether the appellant failed to file a declaration under Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Whether the delay in filing the declaration can be condoned.
4. Interpretation of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 57T regarding taking credit on duty paid capital goods by a contractor or job worker.
5. Whether the rule requires the filing of a declaration for taking credit.
6. Whether the invoices in question were issued by the job worker or other manufacturers.
7. Relief available to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sugar manufacturer, contracted with M/s. Thermodyne Technologies to install a boiler using duty paid items from various sources. The appellant claimed credit for duty paid by these items and filed a declaration under Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for not filing a declaration under Rule 57T(7). The authorities disallowed the credit due to the alleged failure to file the declaration within the specified time.

3. The contentious Sub-Rule (7) allows a manufacturer to take credit on duty paid capital goods by a contractor for setting up plant machinery. The rule does not explicitly mention the requirement of filing a declaration.

4. Despite the absence of a declaration requirement in the rule, the Revenue authorities claimed that trade notices mandated such declarations. However, no specific reference to these notices was found in the orders.

5. The Tribunal found that the rule did not necessitate a declaration for taking credit. The invoices submitted were not from the job worker but from other manufacturers, indicating duties were paid by parties other than the job worker.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and granted the appellant consequential relief, if applicable. The judgment clarified the misinterpretation of the rule and the erroneous findings regarding the filing of declarations and duty payment.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi in the cited case.