2002 (5) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing declaration under Rule 57T(3) for availing Modvat credit on fermenting machines used for tea production.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing declaration post tea becoming excisable.
3. Applicability of amended provisions of Rule 57T(13) for condoning procedural lapses in filing declaration.
4. Denial of Modvat credit based on late filing of declaration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a tea manufacturer, received two fermenting machines before tea became excisable and leviable to Central Excise duties. The machines were installed and production started after tea became excisable. The appellant filed a declaration under Rule 57T(3) post installation, seeking credit for duty paid on the machines. The Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay, leading to the present appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the date tea became excisable as the relevant date for filing the declaration, beyond the condonable period. The appellant argued that the amended Rule 57T(13) allows credit despite minor procedural lapses, citing relevant Tribunal decisions and CBEC circular. The appellant contended that the delay should be condoned as the declaration was filed before installation and production.

3. The JDR opposed the appeal, emphasizing statutory requirements for timely declaration filing to avail benefits. The Tribunal noted that the appellant couldn't file the declaration within three months of tea becoming excisable due to prior exemption. However, post tea becoming dutiable, the appellant was entitled to credit upon fulfilling procedural requirements. The Tribunal relied on precedent cases and the CBEC circular to rule that late filing alone cannot deny credit, overturning the lower authorities' decisions.

4. The Tribunal set aside the orders, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant Modvat credit for the fermenting machines. The decision was based on the application of Rule 57T(13) provisions and previous Tribunal rulings, emphasizing that late filing of declaration should not be the sole reason for denying credit. The appeal was upheld, providing consequential relief to the appellant.