9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 188 - HIGH COURT MADRAS]. In any case, I find that the appellants had actually filed the declaration in March, 2000 and it is not the case of non-filing of declaration, but a case of late filing of declaration, if at all. As per the appellants in as much as they got themselves registered in March, 2000 only, they could not have filed the 57-T declaration prior to getting registered themselves. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal, but same one common Order-in-Appeal. 2. The appellants started their factory in or around March, 2000. They were receiving various capital goods and got themselves registered with the Central Excise Department in March, 2000. Simultaneously, they filed a declaration under Rule 57-T of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the said capital good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot file the declaration of Rule 57-T, before the receipt of the capital goods in their factory, they cannot be allowed the CENVAT credit. As regards the third objection of the Revenue, though the original adjudicating authority had disallowed the credit on the ground that the goods received were rough forge items, which could not be used in the fabrication of capital goods, Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the declaration in March, 2000 and it is not the case of non-filing of declaration, but a case of late filing of declaration, if at all. As per the appellants in as much as they got themselves registered in March, 2000 only, they could not have filed the 57-T declaration prior to getting registered themselves. In any case, I find that in the absence of dispute of receipt of capital goods in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
