9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G and 57H in respect of their inputs on 10-2-2000. They had, however, taken Modvat credit of Rs. 78,034/- under Rule 57H, one day earlier i.e. on 9-2-2000. After having filed the Rule 57H declaration, they availed the credit for payment of duty on their final products. They also applied to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner to condone the delay involved in the filing of the declaration. The department by show-cause notice proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that Rule 57H did not permit belated filing of declaration and did not provide for condonation of any delay. The assessee contested the proposal and raised two objections. One objection was that the show-cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken on 9-2-2000 was reversed, the assessee would have been able to retake the credit under Rule 57H on or after 10-2-2000. Hence the show-cause notice proceedings were a futile revenue neutral exercise, the consultant submits. He prays for rejecting the revenue's appeal. 7. I have examined the submissions. 8. The Modvat credit in question was taken on 9-2-2000 before filing the necessary declaration under Rule 57H. The rule prescribed that a manufacturer of final product could take credit on the inputs lying in stock as on the date of filing declaration under Rule 57G, admittedly, in this case, the Rule 57G declaration was also filed along with Rule 57H declaration on 10-2-2000. This meant that any credit, which could be taken under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts and the receipt and utilization thereof in the process of manufacture of final products are not in dispute. The benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs should not be denied on the ground of minor procedural or technical infractions. 10. Ld. Consultant has raised a jurisdictional issue. He has submitted that the Superintendent, who issued the show-cause notices, had no jurisdiction to do so. This argument has been rebutted by the DR on the strength of Board s Circular No. 299/15/97-CX dated 27-2-97. Wherein it was provided that show cause notices should be issued by the Range Superintendent where they were to be adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner in respect of cases not involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
