9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By the said order in original, the Additional Collector had dropped the adjudication proceedings initiated against the present respondent vide show cause notice dated 28-6-1993 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,77,419/- and imposition of penalty. The Additional Collector accepted their plea that Modvat credit should not be denied to them in respect of their input, copper wire scrap as they had obtained the permission of the Assistant Collector for clearing copper waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) for manufacture of copper tubes and pipes. It was held by the Additional Collector that such permission would amount to an acknowledgment of their using the particular input and constitute substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 57G of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 1049 (Tribunal), 1994 (2) RLT 185 and 1995 (79) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal) = 1995 (8) RLT 868 (Tribunal). On delayed filing of the declaration and for the plea that the declaration may be filed within six months, the following cases have been cited :- 1997 (18) RLT 499 and 1996 (87) E.L.T. 193. The decisions cited do not actually support the plea taken by the respondent that notwithstanding the non-inclusion of the subject input, namely copper wire scrap in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G showing the inputs and the final products, they were eligible to take the credit for such inputs. The decisions are in the context of adequacy of general description of the inputs, discrepancies in the Tariff Headings/Sub-headings and non-ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain a dated acknowledgment. As already considered earlier, it is the admitted position that such a declaration was not filed in respect of the subject input. The decisions cited on behalf of the respondent did not deal with situations where an input was not included in the declaration. Discrepancies in the Tariff Heading or a general description have been held to be not a disqualification for availing Modvat credit. The question here is, however, not of incomplete or general description but of non-declaration of the subject input. Such a failure viewed in the context of Rule 57G(1) clearly goes against the respondent. Declaration of input is a mandatory requirement. If, however, the inputs had been received before filing of the declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
