1998 (9) TMI 316 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Availing Modvat credit wrongly on input received before filing declaration under Rule 57G.
- Proper procedure for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57H.
- Interpretation of Rule 57G regarding the timing of availing Modvat credit.
- Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions on similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the availing of Modvat credit on inputs received before filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent alleged that the Modvat credit taken by the Respondents was erroneous as it pertained to inputs received prior to the filing of the declaration. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order by relying on a Tribunal decision in a similar case.

2. The contention was made that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on the previous Tribunal decision, as it was not a final order but a remand order. It was argued that the proper procedure for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57H was not followed by the Respondents in this case, as they did not apply for verifying all inputs in stock before filing the declaration. The timing discrepancy between input receipt and declaration filing was highlighted.

3. The Respondents, through their counsel, argued that the inputs were received into their factory after the declaration filing date, contrary to the allegations. They claimed to have filed the Modvat declaration earlier than stated and provided evidence to support their position. Reference was made to specific dates and communications to establish the timeline of events regarding input receipt, declaration filing, and acknowledgment.

4. The Tribunal carefully considered the rival submissions and analyzed the previous decisions in similar cases. It was noted that the Tribunal had previously ruled that the manufacturer could take Modvat credit even if inputs were received before the declaration filing, as long as the credit was taken after receiving acknowledgment. The procedural requirements under Rule 57G were emphasized, and it was held that the Respondents in the current case had followed the correct procedure by taking credit only after receiving acknowledgment. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the established legal principles and previous decisions.

5. The Cross-objection supporting the impugned order was dismissed as mis-conceived. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome in the matter.