Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (8) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses. In addition they have a distillary also. With the introduction of Modvat credit on capital goods with effect from 1-3-1994 the assessee, filed a declaration on 29-6-1994 stating inter alia that they were filing on declaration under Rule 57T for availing Modvat credit on capital goods and further indicated that the tariff classification and details of duty paid on capital goods has not been mentioned by them in the declaration as those were not known to them at that time. Promising to furnish detail as and when the same were available to them. The Assistant Collector was not satisfied with the declaration already filed and he asked the assessee to specify the use of each ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It was also alleged that the assessee was requested to submit an undertaking that the said capital goods will not be used in any way towards production of goods manufactured by the distillery unit installed in the factory. It was, therefore, alleged that since the final declaration was received only on 21-9-1994 and therefore, the Modvat credit taken from 1-9-1994 to 29-9-1994 was not admissible to the appellants. The Deputy Collector decided the case against the assessee. In appeal the ld. Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Collector. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants for the first time had submitted a declaration on 29-6-1994. He submits that declaration met the requiremen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mplied with and therefore, Modvat credit has wrongly been denied. 4. The ld. Counsel also submitted that there is a provision under Rule 57T about late submission of declaration. He submits though not admitting that even if the declaration was filed late the delay upto one month in filing the declaration was condonable without prior permission of the AC. He submits that in their case the delay was only of 20 days and, therefore, it should have been condoned as such delay was condonable and that only a delay of more than one month required explanation. The ld. Counsel in support of his contention referred to the decision in the case of Prefect Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [1995 (77) E.L.T. 558 (Tribunal) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y clear when the Deputy Collector in his order referred to this aspect that the Assistant Collector, Barilley Division has issued clear guidelines. The ld. DR also submitted that the Assistant Collector required a specific undertaking from the assessee to declare that the capital goods on which Modvat credit was being claimed shall not be used in the distillary which was not done by the appellants, instead they filed a comprehensive declaration on 29-9-1994. In support of his contention he relied on the decision rendered in the case of Webel Tools (India) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1995 (79) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal) and in the case of L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e requirement stating further that the appellants had filed the first declaration on 29-6-1994 and that subsequent exchange of correspondence was only for modification of the declaration filed on 29-6-1994. As the declaration filed on 21-9-1994 is an extension of the declaration already filed on 29-6-1998 saying that the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector was not complete unless the declaration dated 21-9-1994 was filed is hiper technical. We also note that under Rule 57T there is a provision that declaration could be filed upto a limit of one month late. Looking to all these factors we hold that the declaration of 21-9-1994 treated as the comprehensive declaration is the extension of the declaration filed on 29-6-1994. Looking to all .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates