9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise, Guntur, reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal). 2. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants in respect of Jet Driers and in respect of Electrical Hoist. The credit in respect of the first item has been denied on the ground that the said goods were received in the appellants' factory during March, 1997 whereas the declaration was filed on 14-8-1997 i.e. after the period of three months from the date of receipt of such capital goods. The appellants' stand is that though the goods were received by them in March, 1997, but they were not registered with the Central Excise Authorities during that period as they were still in the process of erection of their factory. They were registered with the Central Excise Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file a declaration with the Central Excise Authorities. As during the relevant time, they were not manufacturers having not been registered with the Central Excise Authorities, the provisions of the said Rule cannot be invoked against them for denying the benefit of Credit under the provisions of Rule 57Q. 3. In respect of the second item i.e. Electrical Hoist, Credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that there is no sufficient explanation for delayed filing of declaration. In that case, the goods were received in the factory on 2-6-97 and the declarations were filed on 14-8-97 i.e. admittedly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the capital goods. Shri Chakraborty submits that as the appellants we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, which cannot be relaxed in any circumstances. He, further, submits that in respect of Electrical Hoist, no sufficient valid reason has been given by the appellants for late filing of the declaration and as such, the same has rightly not been condoned by the Assistant Commissioner. Further, distinguishing the case of Seven Hills Papers (supra), from the facts of the present case, he submits that at the period in that case was 1994 and it was observed by the Bench that the position was not clear at the relevant time as regards the applicability of Rule 57T. In the instant case, the period involved is 1997 and by that time, the law had become settled and the appellants should have known that the declaration was required to be filed within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing the ratio of the same, I extend the benefit of Modvat credit to the appellants in respect of jet driers. 7. In respect of electrical hoist, I find that the declaration was, in any case, filed within three months from the date of the said capital goods. The reasons given by the appellants are sufficient reason to condone the delay. In any case, following the ratio of Seven Hills Papers' case referred supra, I find that the declarations have been filed within the extended period after the date of registration of the factory. There seems to be no justifiable ground for denying the benefit of Credit of Duty paid on the capital goods. 8. As regards the another ground of the Department for denying the credit, I do not find any justifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
