9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7G; and that there were minor variations in the description given in the declaration and those in the invoice. However, the Adjudicating Officer has held that this is not the case but at the same time, the Adjudicating Officer has not categorically contradicted the submissions of the appellant that they were only minor variations in the description given as has been contended by him at the time of personal hearing in his appeal memo. It appears that the variations are in the description which are minor in nature and they did not change the character of the inputs which have been declared under Rule 57G. I hold accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch delay in filing declaration under Rule 57G(1). Modvat credit of Rs. 28,700/- disallowable and recoverable under Rule 57I. Held accordingly. 3. I have heard the arguments of Shri D.N. Choudhary, ld. DR for the appellant and Shri Sushil Kumar, ld. Chartered Accountant for the respondent. 4. The main thrust of the arguments of the appellant was that filing of a declaration for availing Modvat was substantive requirement for availment of input duty credit in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules; that the respondent, being aware that the said items were not declared in their declarations, therefore filed a belated Modvat declaration declaring the said goods and also made request for Condonation of Delay in declaring the said i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed within six months along with the request for Condonation of Delay. It was submitted by them that delay has not been condoned even today. In view of the fact that inputs were received on 15-3-96 and 14-3-96 and declaration along with a request for Condonation of Delay was filed on 13-9-96. I find that these declarations are within time-limit and since no communication was sent to the appellant stating that the delay is not condoned, therefore, the respondents herein had the normal presumption that the delay had been condoned. For this view, I find support from Rules 57G and 57(H)(ii). In this view of the matter, I hold that the respondents are entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs received under invoices dt. 15-3-96 and 14-3-96. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
