9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 431 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - delay in filing the declaration - Held that - As interpreting sub-rule 13 of Rule 57T, they concluded that so long as receipt and duty paid nature of the goods is not challenged, the delay in filing the declaration can be condoned. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgement in cases where sole grounds of denial of credit is delay, the delay is condoned. The appeal for such cases is allowed by condoning the delay. In cases where apart from delay, there are other issues raised in the Order-in-Original, but it has not been dealt with in the Order-in-Appeal, the Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Delay in filing declaration for availing CENVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 57T (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. - Denial of credit on capital goods due to delay in filing the declaration. - Interpretation of sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T regarding condonation of delay in filing declaration. - Applicability of procedural requirements and condonable delays under sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T. Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Declaration: The Appellants, engaged in the manufacture of LPG Gas and Polymers, were installing an LPG Plant during 1999-2000. They filed a declaration for CENVAT credit on capital goods with delays ranging from one to ten months. The Assistant Commissioner denied the credit primarily due to the delay in filing the declaration, leading to a notice for denial of credit on capital goods. 2. Legal Precedents and Circular: The Appellants cited various judgments and Circular No.441/7/99-CX to support their claim that delay in filing declarations can be condoned under exceptional circumstances. They highlighted sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T introduced in 1999, which emphasized that credit should not be denied solely based on procedural lapses if the duty on capital goods has been paid and the goods are used in manufacturing. 3. Contentions and Tribunal Decision: The ld.D.R. argued that delay condonation can only occur under exceptional circumstances as per Rule 57T (3). The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the receipt of goods and duty paid character was not disputed. Referring to legal precedents, especially the judgment in Union of India Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that substantive requirements for availing MODVAT credit should take precedence over procedural lapses like delay in filing declarations. 4. Tribunal Ruling: Following the interpretation of sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T in line with legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in cases where denial of credit was solely based on delay by condoning the delay. However, in cases where additional issues were raised apart from delay, but not addressed in the Order-in-Appeal, the matter was remanded for further consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the receipt and duty paid nature of goods are not disputed, delays in procedural requirements can be condoned under sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the importance of substantive requirements for availing MODVAT credit, emphasizing that procedural lapses like delay in filing declarations should not hinder legitimate credit claims if the essential conditions are met. The ruling provided clarity on the condonable delays under Rule 57T and highlighted the significance of legal precedents in interpreting and applying excise rules effectively.
|
