9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On 10-1-1995 the appellants filed a revised declaration in which the inputs were reduced from 12 to 8. After submitting the declaration on 25-11-1994 to the A.C., Varanasi, the appellants entered the inputs received in the factory in RG 23A Part I on the date of receipt of inputs. But credited the duty thereof only on and after 15-1-1995 in RG 23A Part II. The credits were taken on the dates of utilisation of the inputs and thus the inputs were lying in the factory till the date of filing of second declaration on 10-1-1995. The RG 23A Part I of December 1994 was submitted to the Range Superintendent on 5-1-1995 which clearly shows the position of inputs lying in stock at the end of the month December 1994. The inputs which are included i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following judgments of Hon ble Tribunal : 1996 (84) E.L.T. 483 1996 (88) E.L.T. 372 The Central Board of Excise Customs has clarified vide Circular No. 219/53/96-CX, dated 4-6-1996 that Modvat credit should not be denied on account of wrong classification in declaration under Rule 57G. Thus, the order of the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the circular of C.B.E.C. 5. He further submitted that nowhere (in the show cause notice, in adjudication order or in order-in-appeal) the authenticity of Invoice No. MSP/VIN/103, dated 8-12-1994 or being duplicate copy has been challenged. In other words, it is admitted fact that invoice on which credit was taken is duplicate copy for transporter. The credit has been taken on duplicate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-12-1994 has been rightly denied as pre-printing of duplicate for transporter on the invoice is a statutory requirement under Rule 57G. 7. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that if the declaration filed by the appellant was incomplete in the opinion of the authorities they could have called for the remaining information required for taking decision and thereafter passed appropriate orders. What is actually required to be seen in such cases is whether there was a substantive compliance with the essential requirements of law. In this case it is seen that the appellants had first filed a declaration on 25-11-1994 and subsequently a revised declaration on 10-1-1995 and the inputs were lying in the factory till the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
