9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of 57F(20) - The findings recorded by the Tribunal that show cause notice did not contain any allegation regarding violation of Rule 57F(20) had not been challenged. - No such substantial question of law arises for consideration. In so far as filing of declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was concerned the declaration was submitted by the assessee with delay - The declaration filed with delay was rejected without any valid reason - Rule 57G(9) empowers the authority to condone the delay in filing of such declaration and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the inputs - Declaration of the assessee was claimed to have been filed well within a period of six months from the receipt of inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) had not accepted the first ground for disallowing the Modvat credit to the respondents on the ground that no such allegation was made in the show cause notice and that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He has followed the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Vijay Power Generators Ltd., 2001 (129) E.L.T. 663, wherein it has been held that any order passed beyond the scope of show Cause Notice, is liable to be struck down on that ground only. (3) Similarly, the second ground has also not been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Pratap Steels Ltd. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 193 and C.D. Engg. Co., 1999 (105) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit is called for, it can only be construed to be a technical requirement can not construe to be a violation of Rule 57G The fact that a fresh registration was applied granted does not itself justify the view fresh declaration is needed under Rule 57-G. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to meet the reasons which was relied by the appellate authority and judgment which were relied. The following question has been framed in the memo : (a) Whether the respondent (manufacturer) could avail Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Rules on the basis of declaration filed by a unit earlier existed inn the same premises, without filing a declaration under Rule 57G or without seeking permission under Rule 57F(20) of the Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of law arises for consideration. In so far as filing of declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is concerned the declaration was submitted by the assessee on 8-12-1999 i.e. with delay. The declaration filed with delay was rejected without any valid reason. Rule 57G(9) empowers the authority to condone the delay in filing of such declaration and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the inputs. Declaration of the assessee is claimed to have been filed well within a period of six months from the receipt of input in the factory. 6. We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the revenue confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is concluded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
