9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Modvat credit on the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of final products. On scrutiny of the records, the Revenue observed that invoice No. 950651 dated 22-12-1995 which covered the receipt of Modvatable products classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8424.10 did not find mention in clause (d) of the Explanation under Rule 57Q and, therefore, Modvat credit was not admissible to the assessee. The department also found that in respect of the goods received under Invoice No. 1212, dated 23-6-1996, no declaration was filed within the stipulated time and the declaration filed subsequently was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Therefore, a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is finding of the Commissioner was wrong. He submits that since the appellants themselves abandoned their right to contest and, therefore, they cannot at this stage argue against forfeiting right to contest this part of the credit. 5. Ld. Counsel on the issue of not filing declaration before the receipt of the goods and filing it after receipt of the goods without an application for condonation of delay in terms of Rule 57T(1) submits that the appellants had filed the declaration on 19-5-1996. He submits that the department had not objected when the declaration was filed and since this declaration was should be presumed to be accepted without any objection, therefore, Modvat credit was taken. Ld. Counsel submits the CBEC in their Circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion without filing an application for condonation of delay. Thus, the silence of the department conveyed the message to the assessee that the declaration has been accepted. Since the department did not raise any objection on the declaration filed in which it was specifically mentioned that the goods have already been received in the factory. The objection for taking credit without condonation of delay in filing the declaration remains a technical lapse. I have seen the circular of the Board which clarified that the technical lapse should not come in the way of allowing Modvat credit if the goods received in the factory and duty paid character of the goods is not in dispute. Looking to all the facts of the case, I hold that Modvat credit wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
