1999 (9) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Competence of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing Modvat declaration under Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer availing Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, who received machine parts of chain under a different sub-heading than previously declared. The appellant, believing the inputs were the same, took Modvat credit before realizing the discrepancy. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, but the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) overturned this decision, allowing the Modvat credit based on a previous order. The sole ground of appeal was the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the Modvat declaration.

The appellant received machine parts covered by different sub-headings and used them for manufacturing without initially realizing the discrepancy. They filed a supplementary declaration upon noticing the error, seeking to avail credit for the duty paid on these inputs. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the condonation application, disallowing the Modvat credit and imposing a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant had a valid case for condonation and allowed the credit. The dispute centered on the Commissioner's authority to annul the Assistant Commissioner's decision regarding condonation.

The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed competent to decide on the condonation application under Section 35A(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The lower appellate authority's decision to condone the delay was upheld based on legal provisions and a relevant tribunal decision. The judgment emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to confirm, modify, or annul the appealed decision, justifying the condonation in this case. The appeal was rejected, confirming the lower appellate authority's decision to allow the Modvat credit.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s competence to condone the delay in filing the Modvat declaration, thereby confirming the lower appellate authority's decision to allow the Modvat credit. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the respondents against the Revenue was disposed of accordingly.