2002 (3) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57T for taking credit of duty paid on capital goods.
2. Determining the relevant date for filing declarations and taking Modvat credit.
3. Condonation of delay in filing declarations.
4. Applicability of Central Excise rules from the date of registration of the factory.
5. Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) order in allowing Modvat credit.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57T concerning the credit of duty paid on capital goods. The Commissioner held that the assessees filed declarations within the stipulated period from the date of commencing their production and rightfully took Modvat credit in respect of capital goods.

2. The crucial aspect discussed was determining the relevant date for filing declarations and taking Modvat credit. The Commissioner noted that the factory's registration under the Central Excise law marks the beginning of the factory's existence. Therefore, the time limit for filing declarations runs from the date of registration, not the date of receipt of capital goods.

3. Another significant point addressed was the condonation of delay in filing declarations. The Commissioner emphasized that the delay in filing the declaration can be condoned if done within the prescribed period from the date of registration. In this case, the declaration was filed well within time, making the assessees eligible for the capital goods Modvat credit.

4. The issue of the applicability of Central Excise rules from the date of factory registration was raised. It was clarified that the factory comes into being only after registration under the Central Excise law. The assessees are bound to follow the Central Excise rules and procedures from the date of registration, as demonstrated by the issuance of the registration certificate.

5. Lastly, the validity of the Commissioner (Appeals) order in allowing Modvat credit was upheld. The appellate tribunal found no infirmity in the order, stating that the findings were just, proper, and in accordance with the law. The order was supported by relevant Tribunal rulings, confirming the eligibility of the assessees for the Modvat credit. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was rejected based on the Commissioner (Appeals) order's soundness and compliance with legal principles.