2007 (11) TMI 188 - HC - Central Excise

Delay in filing of credit declaration procedural lapse - Amendment in notification No.7/99-CE (N.T.) and the subsequent circular No.441/7/99-CX would squarely covers the issue as per impugned amendment to notification and circular procedural lapse by assessee cannot be made basis for denying credit if all the substantive condition have been fulfilled

Summary

Issues:
- Whether credit of duty on capital goods can be allowed without filing statutory declarations as per Rule 57T(1) of CER 1944?
- Whether credit of duty on capital goods can be allowed without intimating the date of receipt of capital goods into the factory as per Rule 57T(2) of CER 1944?
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Revenue failed to prove non-fulfillment of substantive conditions for capital goods credit by the respondent?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of credit of duty on capital goods by a manufacturer of certain goods under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer had claimed credit for a specific amount in their register but was challenged by the Revenue for not complying with the statutory obligations under Rule 57T of the Rules.

2. The Revenue contended that the manufacturer failed to file the necessary statutory declarations before receiving the capital goods and did not provide intimation about the receipt of capital goods into their factory, as mandated by Rule 57T. Consequently, the Revenue issued a show cause notice to disallow the credit claimed and imposed a penalty. The Assistant Commissioner partially allowed the credit but disallowed a significant amount, leading to further appeals by the manufacturer.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order, which was further challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

4. The Revenue argued that the manufacturer had infringed the conditions specified under Rule 57T, emphasizing the importance of timely filing of declarations and providing necessary details for claiming credit. The Tribunal had disallowed the credit based on the delayed filing of modvat declarations, without citing any other reasons for denial.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on an amendment notification and circular issued in 1999, which emphasized that minor procedural lapses in filing declarations should not lead to disallowance of modvat credit if substantive conditions were met. The circular instructed authorities to conduct proper inquiries before issuing show cause notices for procedural lapses and to focus on reducing litigation.

6. Considering the provisions of the amendment notification and circular, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision aligns with the directives, as the case involved belated filing rather than non-filing of modvat declarations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order and emphasizing that modvat credit should not be denied for minor procedural lapses.

7. The judgment underscores the significance of complying with procedural requirements while also ensuring that substantive conditions for claiming credit are met. It highlights the need for authorities to consider the overall fulfillment of conditions before disallowing credit based solely on procedural shortcomings, in line with the principles laid down in the relevant notifications and circulars.