9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, in this case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel Flats, S.S. Ingots, M.S. Ingots etc. During the period 1-11-1992 to 15-12-1991 (Sic), the appellants had not allegedly declared the final product S.S. Flats along with other final products and had thus allegedly taken wrong Modvat credit of Rs. 7,38,597/-. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 7,38,597/- should not be disallowed to them and why the amount utilised should not be demanded from them. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, the appellants said that the final product was declared in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the factory was stainless steel flats only. The ld. Counsel submitted that these two references when read together made it amply clear that there was substantial compliance of Rule 57G. He submitted that this Tribunal has been holding that in case of substantial compliance, benefit of Modvat should not be denied. In support of this contention, he cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Electrical Devices v. CCE [1992 (62) E.L.T. 373] in which this Tribunal has held that - It was pointed out by the assessee that `final products was referred to in the letter dated 11-1-1989 meaning electric fans and electric motors and the reverse of the classification list clearly indicated that they were going to avail of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be utilised for duty payment towards declared final products. The ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, their appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri D.K. Nayyar, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner, submits that declaration is mandatory and, therefore, no concession for not filing the declaration can be granted to the appellants. He submitted that once the declaration in the prescribed form is not made, Modvat credit cannot be granted. In support of his contention, the ld. DR cited and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991 (55) E.L.T. 454]. The ld. DR submitted that in this case, the Apex Court observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the goods to the Job Workers under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, had clearly indicated that they will be manufacturing S.S. Flats. We also note that the Asstt. Collector had allowed them permission during the relevant period for this purpose. When these two are read together, we note that there was sub- stantial compliance with the requirement of filing a declaration for purposes of Rule 57G(2). 6. On a perusal of the ruling of the Apex Court, we note that in that case it was a case of exemption subject to certain verification and verification could be done only when there was a declaration. Therefore, the Apex Court held that declaration was necessary for the purposes of verification and availing the exemption. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
