9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losures which contained a table with all particulars of the inputs, nature of the inputs/final product. The only particular missing in the said declaration was tariff classification, tariff heading/sub-heading of the products. Therefore, the Asstt. Commissioner on the said declaration dated 31-3-1994 endorsed that "Permission after verification report from RO IC". Appellants again furnished all the missing particulars by fresh enclosures on 27-6-1994 giving details of final product, and its classification of chapter heading, sub-heading, description of inputs and its tariff classification, nature of the inputs etc. They furnished further clarification by another declaration on 22-7-1994 thereby initial declaration filed on 31-3-1994 was com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in detail and on that count, remanded the issue. This portion of the order is not challenged by Revenue. Revenue is aggrieved only with regard to declaration which was filed on 31-3-1994 which has been accepted by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Ld. DR Shri M. Kunhikannan argued the matter and contended that in reply to the show cause notice, no contest was raised with regard to three show cause notices. He submits that unless the declaration is complete in all particulars, it cannot be considered as a declaration in the eye of law and therefore the declaration having been accepted only on 22-7-1994 , the credit availed for the earlier period from March, 1994 cannot be said to be proper one. Hence the order passed by the Asstt. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antive violation of Modvat rules. He brings to our notice the judgment of the NRB rendered in Greysham Co. v. CCE as in 1999 (99) E.L.T. 75 wherein it has been held that delay in filing the declaration prior to availment of credit on the declaration already furnished to the department is condonable and benefit cannot be denied. 5. Ld. Counsel further submits that Rule 57G(5) as existed during the relevant period lays down that where a manufacturer was not in a position to make a declaration but however makes the declaration and for the reasons to be recorded in the order by AC, he can condone the delay in filing the declaration and allow the manufacturer to take credit paid on the inputs. He submits that no allegation has been brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the AC had not given sufficient reasons for proper understanding of the requirements of the fulfilment of notification. Since this issue was remanded, it is not proper to set aside that portion of the order and to hold that the AC was right in refusing to take credit taken in respect of documents which were furnished prior to 31-3-1994. However, the aspect is required to be re-examined in the light of the Tribunal judgments on this aspect which has already been remanded. 10. As regards the Commissioner's finding on the declaration filed on 31-3-1994, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by Commissioner is just, legal, and proper for the reason that appellants had filed detailed declaration in the prescribed format w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
