9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Gupta learned DR who submits that the respondents have taken Modvat credit on Ship breaking scrap between 12-10-1991 and 28-11-1991. However it was found that this was done without filing a proper and pointed declaration under Rule 57G. As the same was mandatory requirement and not a procedural requirement, their subsequent declaration dated 18-12-1991 does not justify the said credits as the declaration was filed much after the last date of availment of Modvat credit. In this connection, she cited the case of PG Conductors as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 336 (Tri.) wherein it has been held that filing of declaration under Rule 57G is a mandatory and not a procedural requirement for the purposes of taking Modvat credit. Learned DR furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued under Rule 57-I, therefore it can be re-credited by them. (ii) He submits that it is not correct to say that the first declaration was filed only on 18-12-1991 by them as in their reply to the said Superintendent s letter vide their letter dated 4-7-1994 (Pg. 5) the respondents had clearly mentioned that there was an original declaration filed with the Department, much in advance of the period during which this Modvat credit was taken to the effect that they shall be receiving inputs namely M.S. Scrap falling under Chapter 72 for the manufacture of the specified end-products. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Remson Industries Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 104 (Tri), this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot such a notice in law, therefore the refund claim now cannot be denied. Hence there is no merit in the revenue appeal and that the Order-in-Appeal shall be allowed to stand. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the records of the case. The revenue s appeal is mainly on the ground that in the absence of a declaration under Rule 57G, the credit taken by the respondents was irregular and therefore there was nothing wrong in its reversal on the basis of the Superintendent s letter dated 30-11-1993. Since the respondents agreed to do so voluntarily, no Adjudication Proceedings were resorted to till the dispute was raised leading to the issue of show cause notice dated 10-2-1995. Learned Advocate has contended on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether the nature of this declaration would be sufficient for the purposes of Rule 57G in this case or not. Learned DR has vehemently argued that the description M.S. Scrap being a very broad description, it would not cover M.S. Scrap obtained from Ship breaking. However in view of the principles contained in the decision of Remson India Limited supra as well as Saket Steel Ltd. supra, I find that since Ship breaking scrap would also be M.S. Scrap falling under Chapter 72, therefore this statutory requirement under Rule 57G would be satisfied in this case. Secondly I find that in view of the case laws cited as noted supra, the letter dated 30-11-1993 of the Superintendent asking for the co-operation to expunge the Modvat credit would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
