9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s resolved by Order-in-Original No. 95/95 dated 19-5-95 in terms of Rule 57T(1) of C.E. Rules. Appellants thereafter within a period of three months from the date of the order filed declaration on 21-8-95 and within one month from the date of filing of the declaration had paid duty and had sought for taking Modvat credit. It was noted that there was no dispute about the item being modvatable and the credit being granted. The question which was before the Tribunal was with regard to duty on which the declaration was required to be filed and taking of Modvat credit. The Tribunal after due consideration held that the question of paying duty or filing declaration did not arise till the dispute pertaining to the item being capital goods or not w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of Appellate Authority was right in granting Modvat credit on DG set wherein the assessee had suppressed the facts of manufacture of DG Set and other machineries without intimating the department. When the provisions of Rule 57R(6) of CER, 1944, does not allow the modvat credit on capital goods has not been paid by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in upholding the assessee's appeal by granting Modvat credit on DG set which was installed during April 94 and declaration was filed after a lapse of one year, contravening the provisions of Rule 57T(1) of CER 44 and further relying on decision in the case of M/s. Dalmia Industries, which is not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the submissions, it is seen that the matter was examined in the light of provisions of law and what was required to be examined are only facts. It was clearly disclosed from the facts of the case that there was a dispute pertaining to an item being capital goods and modvatable. In terms of law laid down the facts were disputed and clarified that appellants had filed declaration after the dispute was resolved within the period stipulated in terms of said rules. Therefore, the Bench feels that the first question raised was not in issue and the same is not referable. As far as the second question raised by revenue is concerned, there has been no misinterpretation of the rules. The Bench has only interpreted the law in terms of facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
