2009 (12) TMI 744 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Eligibility for deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) dated 3-9-96 for processed knitted fabrics chargeable to Central Excise duty Chapter 60 of the Central Excise Tariff from May 1998 to October 1998.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of processed knitted fabrics, was denied deemed credit amounting to Rs. 20,85,801/- by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 57-I(1)(iii) read with Rule 57-I(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for allegedly not filing the required declaration under Rule 57G. The Commissioner (Appeals) and CCE (Appeals) upheld the denial. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, which remanded the matter for de novo decision. However, the CCE (Appeals) again dismissed the appeal. The main contention was the non-filing of the required declaration. The appellant argued that they had indeed submitted the declaration on 13-9-96, supported by various pieces of evidence, including a certified copy of the receipt register and a letter from the Deputy Commissioner. The Departmental Representative defended the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence provided by the appellant and found that the denial of deemed credit based on the non-submission of the declaration was incorrect.

The lower appellant authority upheld the denial citing reasons such as the appellant not producing the original declaration with the receiving official's signature, discrepancies in dates on the receipt register, and alleged misrepresentation by the appellant. However, the Tribunal noted that the Divisional office's receipt register did show a "Modvat declaration" filed by the appellant on 17-9-96. The appellant produced a letter from the Deputy Commissioner confirming the receipt of the declaration on 13-9-96, endorsed to the Range Office with the Range Officer's initials. The Tribunal found that the appellant's declaration had indeed been received on 13-9-96, as confirmed by the Range Officer. The Deputy Commissioner's letter and the entry in the receipt register supported the appellant's claim, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of deemed Modvat credit was not justified as the appellant had submitted the required declaration on time, as evidenced by official documents and confirmations. The discrepancies highlighted by the lower authorities were not substantial enough to negate the appellant's claim, leading to the setting aside of the denial and allowing the appeal.