Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (10) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the sole ground of non-mention was, therefore, held not proper. The present reference is against the said order. 2. The question raised by Revenue for reference under Section 35G is as under : Whether credit can be allowed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of inputs for which no declaration was filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The facts briefly stated are that General Engineering Works, Bharatpur (respondents before us) are engaged in the manufacture of steel wire/standard steel wire falling under sub-heading 7217.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Anti-evasion Officers of Central Excise Department paid surprise visit to their factory on 23-9-1988 and found that they had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... already been paid on processed steel wire (input) used by them in or in relation to the manufacture of steel wire (final product) since they had subsequently cleared the steel wire obtained from processed steel wire on payment of duty, the position was that they had paid duty both on the processed steel wire and steel wire obtained from the same. They further claimed that since both the products were classifiable under the same Chapter Heading and sub-heading, there could not be double taxation on the same article, classifiable under the same sub-heading. Therefore, they retained the right to claim refund of duty paid twice on the same excisable commodity. Respondents further contended that in any case, the violation was of a technical natu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Commission it has been urged that the Tribunal s observation to the effect that the goods received were not duty paid or had not been utilised has virtually overthrown Rule 57G and would make it meaningless and that such an interpretation runs counter to the scheme of the rules/Act. 9. For purposes of deciding this question it will be necessary to examine the provision of Rule 57G which deals with the procedure to be observed by the manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A. According to Rule 57G it is mandatory for every intending manufacturer to file a declaration indicating the description of the final products manufactured in his factory and the inputs intended to be used in each of the fina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y were not duty paid or that they had not been utilised in the manufacture of finished product. The Commissioner s case in the present application is that the above finding of the Tribunal runs counter to the scheme of rules. The question of law raised for reference by the Collector is, whether, in the absence of declaration under Rule 57G credit can be allowed under Rule 57A. On the admitted facts of the case, it cannot be said that no declaration had been filed under Rule 57A. What had in fact been done by the assessee was to file two misdeclarations, one on 27-4-1987 and another on 15-5-1987. A correct declaration was filed only on 16-9-1988. On 12-10-1988 the Superintendent had by a letter (not taken on record in the proceedings before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a finding as to whether the requirement laid down in Mahindra and Mahindra (supra) had been satisfied. On the question of non-declaration of inputs the Tribunal had observed that there was no finding by lower authorities as to non-payment of duty on the inputs received or non-use of the inputs in the final product. Mere non-mention of the inputs, according to the Tribunal without any finding as to the failure to pay duty on the inputs or their non-utilisation would not justify demand of duty. In fact it is an admitted fact that duty had in fact been paid on the inputs and what had been asked for by the Superintendent was a reversal of the Modvat credit claimed. 10. In the admitted facts of the case, the Tribunal s conclusion that non-men .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates