9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. The Appellant set up a new factory for manufacture of certain excisable goods, in early 1995. Capital goods were purchased and were received in the appellant s premises in 1994. The appellant who intended to avail credit of the duty paid on the capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was required, by Rule 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months of date of receipt of the capital goods. He declined to condone the delay in filing the declaration in respect of the capital goods received more than 3 months prior to the date of submitting the declaration. This part of the order was challenged unsuccessfully before the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 2. It is no doubt true, going by the language of the Rule, that the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly clarified, by letter dated 26-11-1994, that credit of duty is admissible only when the capital goods enter into production and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to allow credit at the stage of initial setting up of the factory (where the factory is not yet in existence) and the manufacturer intending to take credit in such a case shall continue to file declaration as required irrespecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich defines factory, inter alia as any premises wherein which excisable goods are manufactured on process connected with the production of excisable goods is being carried out on or is ordinarily carried on. It is also pointed out that the proforma prescribed for the declaration contains a column to furnish the date of registration under Rule 174 of the Rules. Rule 174 of the Rules requires regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
