9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n both the appeals on which the Modvat credit has been denied by the authorities below is that no declaration under the provisions of Rule 57G declaring the input was filed by the appellants. The appellants in their reply to the show cause notice admitted the lapse on their part, but submitted that out of confusion, they could not file the requisite decla- ration. The appellants in their reply before the Assistant Commissioner submitted that subsequently, they had filed the declaration on 16-1-1995 which was within a period of six months from the date of taking the Credit and as such, the delay in question may be condoned by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (as it stood a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 57G(5), powers have been given to the Assistant Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57G(1) upto the period of six months, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions enumerate therein. We find that though the appellants in reply to the show cause notice, had made a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the declaration to the Assistant Commissioner, who while adjudicating the case, had not considered the same and had not given any finding on the same. Accordingly, we set aside this part of the Order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to look into the appellants prayer for condonation of delay in filing the declaration and decide the matter thereof, in accordance with the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned JDR Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this part of the appeal and reject the same by upholding the Order of the authorities below in so far as the same relates to the denial of Modvat credit of a sum of Rs. 1,09,730.51. Modvat credit of Rs. 25,550.00 has further been denied to the appellants in Appeal No. E-298/97, on the ground that the Modvat credit has been taken on the strength of original invoices, whereas under the provisions of Rule 57G(2A) read with Rule 52A, the Modvat credit was permissible only when the duplicate invoice had been issued to the transporters. Mohanty, ld. Counsel submits that the duplicate copies of the invoices were not received by the them as the same were misplaced by the transporters in tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the fact that the period involved in this case is October, 1994. 11. The new procedure of the invoice had been introduced recently. We also take note of the fact that the Department is otherwise not disputing the availability of the Modvat credit except on part of the appellants who have not been able to produce the duplicate copy. Nevertheless, the original copy showing all the particulars required to be incorporated in the invoice, have been produced by the appellants. In this view of the matter, we consider it to be a rectifiable defect which, if rectified by the appellants now, the Modvat credit should be allowed to them. Accordingly we give another opportunity to the appellants to rectify this defect and produce rectified documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
