9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Dhanbad by Ordinary Post, declaring thereby the intended inputs and the final products in respect of which the appellants intended to avail the Modvat credit. According to them, they waited for the acknowledgement of the Assistant Commissioner and when the same was not received, they sent a reminder vide their letter dated 17-5-1991. In the said reminder, a reference to their earlier declaration dated 2-4-1991 was also made by them. The said reminder dated 17-5-1991 was, however, acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Office Letter dated 17-6-1991. However, in the said letter of the Assistant Commissioner acknowledging the appellants declaration, the reference actually made was in respect of their reminder dated 17-5-1991 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them on 2-4-1991 followed by a reminder dated 17-5-1991 which was ultimately acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Office Letter dated 17-5-1991. He submitted that during the pendency of their declaration with the Assistant Commissioner awaiting acknowledgement, the inputs in question were received by them which were entered in Part I Register. He, further, submitted that they did not take any credit till the date of receipt of the acknowledgement by them and it was only thereafter, that the Modvat credit was availed of by them. He submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 57G(2), the Debarring Clause is only in respect of taking of Modvat credit even if the inputs had been received by the appellants prior to obtaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner concerned vide his letter dated 17-6-1991. It is the Modvat on the inputs received during the period in between the filing of the declaration and receipt of the acknowledgement, which is in doubt. The Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the Counsel has taken a view that when the credit was taken after the acknowledgement had been obtained by the assessees, the benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. The objection raised by the learned JDR is also a valid objection that interpreting of Rule 57G in a manner suggested by the learned Counsel would render the provisions of Rule 57H as redundant and would nullify the same. 7. I agree with the JDR that any provision of law has not to be read in isolation; but a harmoniou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellants under the provisions of Rule 57H also, subject to the requisite permission by the Assistant Commissioner. However, in view of the undisputed fact of receipt of inputs and their duty paid character and subsequent utilisation in the manufacture of the final products, the Assistant Commissioner would have given the permission. In the circumstances, even if the technical and procedural requirement of obtaining of permission of the Assistant Commissioner has not been complied with by the appellants herein, the denial of the benefit would not be justified especially when the assessees received the inputs only after the filing of declaration under Rule 57G and had taken the Credit after having received the acknowledgement and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
