2004 (2) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the appellants of Rs. 9,69,765/-. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the capital goods on which the Modvat credit has been disallowed were duly declared by the appellants in the declaration filed under Rule 57-T and that the delay, if any, in filing the declaration was also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at declaration was given by them only on 30-5-1995 but the credit was availed by them during the period 2-12-1994 to 29-12-1994, much prior to the filing of the declaration regarding the specific capital goods. The Addl. Commissioner through the order-in-original allowed the credit and dropped the show cause notice, dated 7-5-1995 issued to the appellants for denial of the credits on the ground th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner could not pass any order on the application of the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, has rightly ignored the order of the Asstt. Commissioner condoning the delay for a period which was not within his competency to condone. 5. The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Kamakhya Steel (supra) referred to by the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X