9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and various other products. The appellants are availing modvat facilities also. On scrutiny of RT 12 return for the month of Jan. 1995, it was noticed that the appellants had filed modvat declaration under Rule 57T(1) for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. On scrutiny of the declaration, it was noticed that the goods had been received before filing these declarations and that the appellants had taken the credit. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be disallowed and the amount should not be recovered from them and why penalty should not be imposed. 3. Shri S.C. Sethi, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the declaration on 6-1-1995. They explained that they could not submit the declaration immediately as the details were not readily available. The ld. Counsel also referred to Board s Circular No. 181/15/96-CX, dated 7-3-1996 whereunder the Board had clarified that credit could not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration has been filed after receipt of the capital goods. The Board further clarified that in all the cases where a declaration was filed after receipt of the capital goods, the manufacturer should be required to file along with the declaration an explanation for delay in filing the same. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants had filed the declaration and had also furnished the explanation. The ld. Counsel sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication. He submitted that the opinion given by the expert was of a general nature. He submitted that having regard to the findings of the lower authorities, Modvat credit has rightly been denied in the case where the declaration was filed after 25 days and the penalty has rightly been imposed. 8. Heard the submissions of both sides. There are three issues for determination before me. The first issue is whether the reasons for filing the declaration late are sufficient. I find that the appellants in their letter dated 6-1-1995 had explained the reasons. I also observe that CBEC in their Circular dated 7-3-1996 cited above had clarified that credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration had been filed after the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
