1998 (8) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Compliance with Rule 57T for availing Modvat credit on capital goods
- Timeliness of filing the comprehensive declaration
- Satisfaction of the Assistant Collector with the declaration

Compliance with Rule 57T for availing Modvat credit on capital goods:
The appeal was filed against the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the furnishing of information required by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses with a distillery, filed a declaration for Modvat credit on capital goods. The Assistant Collector requested specific details about the capital goods' use and an undertaking that they would not be used in the distillery's production. The appellant submitted details gradually, leading to a comprehensive declaration on 21-9-1994. The Deputy Collector and the Commissioner upheld the denial of Modvat credit, alleging incomplete information. The appellant argued full compliance with Rule 57T, providing necessary details and an undertaking, and claimed the denial was unjustified.

Timeliness of filing the comprehensive declaration:
The appellant contended that the declaration filed on 29-6-1994 met Rule 57T requirements, stating that tariff classification was not feasible before goods' arrival. They argued that subsequent submissions fulfilled all criteria, challenging the allegation of non-compliance. The appellant highlighted the provision for late declaration submission, seeking condonation for the 20-day delay. Citing precedents, they emphasized the timely filing of the declaration before the credit period commenced, asserting that denial was unwarranted.

Satisfaction of the Assistant Collector with the declaration:
The Department argued that the Assistant Collector's satisfaction was crucial for accepting the declaration. They pointed out that the initial submission did not meet requirements, necessitating a comprehensive declaration. Referring to Trade Notices mandating a specific proforma, they contended that the appellant's declaration lacked essential details, including the required undertaking. Citing relevant cases, they maintained that Modvat credit was rightly denied due to incomplete information and the delayed comprehensive declaration. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions, finding that the appellant substantially complied with Rule 57T, considering the initial declaration as a basis for subsequent modifications. They held that the comprehensive declaration was timely and entitled the appellant to Modvat credit for the specified period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs as per the law.