1995 (7) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 57-O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in relation to Notification 45/89 and Notification 27/87.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, regarding the applicability of benefits under Notification 45/89 based on a prior declaration filed under Notification 27/87. The lower appellate authority held that there was no requirement for a fresh declaration under Rule 57-O when transitioning from one notification to another. The Collector argued that a fresh declaration was necessary under Notification 45/89 to avail of the benefits. The DR for the department supported the Collector's position, emphasizing the relationship between the declaration and the Notification for availing benefits.

2. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57-O, which mandates manufacturers to file a declaration to avail of the money credit scheme. The Tribunal highlighted that the purpose of the declaration is to inform the authorities about the manufacturer's intention to claim benefits and ensure compliance with statutory rules. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the importance of filing a declaration for verification purposes. The Tribunal also cited previous judgments to support the requirement of filing a declaration for availing benefits under specific notifications.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, who had stopped availing benefits under Rule 57K after the rescission of Notification 27/87, needed to file a fresh declaration under Rule 57-O when Notification 45/89 was issued to resume availing benefits. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a prior declaration sufficed, emphasizing the need for compliance with Rule 57-O and notification requirements. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case's ruling, holding that filing a declaration after the issuance of a new notification was necessary for availing benefits, contrary to the earlier decision.

4. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, ruling that the benefit of the money credit scheme under Rule 57K with Notification 45/89 could not be granted without a fresh declaration as per Rule 57-O. The cross objection was dismissed as misconceived in law, affirming the necessity of compliance with declaration requirements for availing benefits under specific notifications.

This detailed analysis highlights the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 57-O in relation to Notification 45/89 and Notification 27/87, emphasizing the importance of filing a fresh declaration to avail of benefits under the money credit scheme.