2001 (9) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules regarding the filing of a declaration for taking credit on capital goods.
2. Determination of the date of receipt of capital goods in the factory for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the declaration.
3. Consideration of whether a factory comes into existence only after registration under the Central Excise law.
4. Analysis of whether ignorance of the law can be accepted as a valid excuse for not filing the declaration under Rule 57T.

Analysis:

1. The first issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules concerning the filing of a declaration for claiming credit on capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the declaration filed by the assessee within three months from the date of factory registration was acceptable, allowing the Modvat credit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of timely declaration filing as per the rule.

2. The second issue addresses the determination of the date of receipt of capital goods in the factory for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the declaration. The Tribunal clarified that in cases where the registration of the factory occurs after receiving the capital goods, the date of registration should be considered as the date of receipt of goods for the declaration filing under Rule 57T(1).

3. The third issue involves the consideration of whether a factory comes into existence only after registration under the Central Excise law. The Tribunal supported the view that the factory's existence, for Central Excise purposes, is linked to its registration, as per Section 2(e) of the Central Excises Act. This interpretation was crucial in determining the timeline for filing the declaration.

4. The final issue raised is whether ignorance of the law can be accepted as a valid excuse for not filing the declaration under Rule 57T. The Revenue argued that the factory should be considered as such regardless of registration status, citing legal references. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements outlined in the Central Excise Rules, stating that ignorance of the law does not exempt the assessee from compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the filing of declarations for claiming credit on capital goods under the Central Excise Rules. It underscores the significance of timely compliance with the rules and regulations, particularly concerning the registration of factories and the receipt of capital goods for Modvat credit eligibility.