1999 (9) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iefly as follows :- The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter sub-headings Nos. 7315.00 and 8431.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the relevant period, the respondents had been receiving unmachined parts of chains etc. classified by the manufacturers under Chapter sub-heading 7325.90 and using the same as inputs for the manufacture of their final products. They had also declared the goods as such in their declaration dated 4-3-1993 filed under Rule 57G of the Rules ibid. At the relevant point of time, the respondents began to receive machine parts of chain etc. classified by the manuf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it amounting to Rs. 23,660/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the assessee. The assessee went in appeal against this order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who, by the order impugned in the present appeal before me set aside the Assistant Commissioner s order and allowed the above Modvat credit, following his own earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 668/C.Ex/CHD/98. 3. I have heard the learned JDR. He reiterates the sole ground raised in the appeal which is to the effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not competent to condone the delay in filing the Modvat declaration and that he can at best issue directions to Assistant Commissioner justifying condonation giving his views in Order-in-App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s per the proviso to Rules 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules and hence such duty was recoverable from the assessee under Rule 57-I of the Rules ibid. The lower appellate authority on the other hand found to the effect that the respondents herein had a good case before the Assistant Commissioner for the condonation of delay in the filing of the declaration under the provisions of Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The lower appellate authority, therefore, allowed the application for condonation and held that Modvat credit on the inputs covered by the aforesaid invoices was allowable. 5. The contention of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay in the filing of the supplementary declaration .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X