1985 (1) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Violation of Rule 56A(3)(i)(a) regarding intimation delay for goods received in the factory. Applicability of Rule 56A(3)(v) and Rule 56A(5) in the case. Condonation of delay in filing D-3 intimation.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT MADRAS, the appeal was filed under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, seeking to set aside the Order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The case involved the violation of Rule 56A(3)(i)(a) due to the delay in giving D-3 intimation for goods received in the factory. The Assistant Collector disallowed the credit availed by the appellant, which was confirmed by the Appellate Collector. The appellant argued that the violation was not related to improper accounting but to delayed intimation, which does not fall under Rule 56A(3)(v). Reference was made to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a decision of the Tribunal to support this argument.

The authorized representative of the appellant further contended that the delay in intimation was due to the process of sandblasting, inspection, and cleaning of the received goods before taking proforma credit. The appellant believed that intimation could be given after this process, citing a Trade Notice allowing condonation of delays in suitable cases. The Departmental Representative supported the Appellate Collector's order. The Tribunal analyzed the matter and concluded that Rule 56A(3)(v) and Rule 56A(5) were not applicable in this case as there was no error, omission, or misconstruction by the officer. However, the Tribunal noted that non-compliance with the law does not entitle the assessee to retain the benefit of improper credit.

Despite this, the Tribunal considered Trade Notice No. 191/84, which allowed for the condonation of late filing of D-3 intimation. Given the specialized nature of the articles and the process involved, the Tribunal deemed that the delay in filing the intimation could be condoned. The Tribunal held that the delay was justified in this case, and thus, allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while considering specific circumstances.