9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls which are disposed of by this common order. 2. Four appeals are filed by four different assessees engaged in the manufacture of P.C.C. and R.C.C. poles using cement as the main input. The dispute relates to Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs availed by appellants during various periods from July 1994 to 31-12-1994. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise passed several orders allowing the benefit of Modvat credit. In appeal by the department, Commissioner(Appeals) disallowed the benefit. 3. Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 lays down the procedure to be observed by the manufacturer. Sub-rule (2) enables the manufacturer who has filed declaration under sub-rule(1) to take credit of the duty paid on inputs received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is no dispute that depot had not been registered as required on or before 31-12-1994. In this connection, it is relevant to reiterate that the dispute in the present appeals relates to Modvat credit availed prior to 31-12-1994. 5. The manufacturer has the option to get his depot registered or not. If the depot is registered, the invoice issued by the registered depot would certainly be a document on the basis of which Modvat credit could be availed. The Board by Circular No. 76/76/94, dated 8-11-1994 implied that registration has to be done on or before 31-12-1994. This will clearly mean that on any date prior to 31-12-1994 Modvat credit could be availed on the strength of an invoice issued by manufacturer at the depot even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. The question of substantial compliance would not arise in respect of the period prior to 31-12-1994 since the department itself has given time till 31-12-1994 to all manufacturers to register the depots. The real question, as already pointed out, is whether the particular input had been received and duty had been paid on the input. The Additional Commissioner examined all the relevant records and arrived at the conclusion that duty had been paid on the input received. That being so, there cannot be any doubt about the genuineness of the claim made by appellant. Such a genuine claim cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of non-registration of depot where the Modvat credit availed relates to the period prior to 31-12-1994. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
