9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the plea of appellants that they had sent the declarations by Certificate of Posting on 9-6-1994 declaring the particulars of inputs and also final product is not acceptable as they had not taken the dated acknowledgement from the concerned Asstt. Commissioner in terms of the rules, and therefore the plea of appellants that they had sent the declarations by certificate of posting is not acceptable. The only question in this appeal is as to whether the appellants plea with regard to their having sent the declarations by certificate of posting can be accepted and as to whether the previous declarations filed by them from time to time for various financial years could be accepted as declarations for the period in question in the light of aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and the same had been accepted. There was no change in the manufacture of final product and the inputs had remained same throughout various financial years. Hence the plea of the department raised subsequently by issuing show cause notice that they had taken Modvat credit without filing declarations is not sustainable. He submits that the Tribunal had an occasion to examine a similar issue in large number of cases and had held that if the party had filed declarations and the same had been acted upon by the department and then failure to file subsequent declarations should not be viewed strictly as it is only a procedural infraction. In this regard, he relies on the following judgments :- (a) McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department. However, the department initiated proceedings stating that they had not filed a separate declaration. Again, the Tribunal overruled the said view of the department as initial declarations had been accepted and acted upon by the department and hence there was no need to file fresh one. (e) Suresafe Glass Works (P) Ltd. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 328 (T). In this case also appellants had been availing small scale exemption and after crossing the exemption limit availed Modvat credit. They had filed declarations initially which were held by the Tribunal to be sufficient and overruled department s plea that on crossing limit, they were required to file fresh declaration. (f) Universal Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declarations and assessments made in RT 12 returns could not be a ground for regularising the Modvat credit obtained. The department s view is that there has to be a declaration and it is mandatory provision under Rule 57G and non-filing of declaration and obtaining acknowledgement itself is sufficient to deny Modvat credit. Although there is no specific provision under Rule 57G for submitting Modvat declaration by post, there is a clear direction that they shall file declaration and obtain acknowledgement. However without going into this question, the matter could be disposed of on the plea raised by the ld. Counsel that earlier declarations will continue to be in operation as there was no change in the manufacturing process. This plea ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
