9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had disallowed Modvat credit to them for the period prior to 10-7-1986 when their declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was received in his office. He had also held them ineligible for the benefit under Rule 57H for the inputs received by them during the period 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986 as they had not applied for such a benefit while submitting their Rule 57G declaration. Their appeal to Collector (Appeals) was rejected by her as she found that Modvat credit had been disallowed by the Assistant Collector not merely on technical ground but on the grounds of statutory provisions of law. She observed that the impugned order of the Assistant Collector was based on facts and correct in law. 2. In their present appeal, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was required to be filed with the Assistant Collector, then they should have been informed by him. Instead he forwarded it to the office of the Assistant Collector after lot of delay. That was after their persistent reminders. Their filing of the declaration with the Inspector was because he was also a part of the Assistant Collector s office. There was substantial compliance with the requirement following the principle of the circular of the Central Board of Excise Customs and the Inspector s acknowledgment by the resident Inspector should be deemed to be acknowledged by the Assistant Collector. They have referred to the Gujarat High Court judgment in Narandas Vallabharam Parmar v. Union of India, 1978 (2) ELT (J 695) (Guj.) = 1990 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quantum of duty paid could be verified, there should be no objection to credit being allowed. 4. The Assistant Collector s finding that they did not opt for the benefit under Rule 57H(1) while filing the declaration has no validity as there is nothing in Rule 57H to suggest that request for facility under that Rule has to be made along with the application for availing of credit under Rule 57G. As regards his finding that they did not satisfy the Assistant Collector in regard to the admissibility of their claim; they have contended that their raw material account was being regularly accounted in form IV. A copy of such statement for the months of February, March, April, May and June 1986 was submitted by them. This had been verified by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative appeared for the respondent Collector. He supported the impugned order. He relied upon the case of Poddar Projects Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 595 wherein it was held by the Tribunal that deemed Modvat credit on steel scrap was not permissible prior to the filing of declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. It was specifically held that transitional credit under Rule 57H was not available from 1-3-1986 to 18-3-1986 prior to declaration. In the present case there was no indication by the appellants about any stock of inputs lying with them at the time of filing the declaration. Transitional period benefit under Rule 57H is not admissible to them and has been rightly rejected, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor as the Inspector s Office is part of the Assistant Collector s office. The Inspector had also received the letter and taken action therein by forwarding it to the office of the Assistant Collector, though after some delay, as pointed out by the appellants, leading to their application being received in the office of the Assistant Collector only on 10-7-1986. As the application has been made in the initial period of Modvat Scheme, their filing the application in the office of the Inspector may be taken as the date of their filing it with the Assistant Collector as the Inspector is working under the Assistant Collector. He is part of the Assistant Collector s office in a broad sense though it was physically situated away from the office o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Modvat credit in respect of goods received before filing the Rule 57G declaration. In this case in the absence of an application for the benefit under Rule 57H(1) and the furnishing of stock particulars etc. the Assistant Collector was not called upon to decide the matter when he received the declaration under Rule 57H. The claim under Rule 57H was made on 31-7-1986 while their declaration was receipted by the Inspector on 12-6-1986. The delay is about 50 days. In the Swastika Metal Works case cited by Shri Jain, learned counsel during the hearing, the declaration under Rule 57G was filed on 31-3-1986 while the application under Rule 57H(1) was filed on 10-6-1986 which was hold to be a reasonable period. The case was remanded to the Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
