9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so availing Modvat credit on the inputs supplied by them. M/s. EPUD were purchasing various inputs of Wet Grinder from M/s. Metafab and M/s. B.K.N. Metafab Pvt. Ltd., who were supplying the said goods to the job workers in the account of M/ s. EPUD. 2. A case was booked against M/s. Metafab, who were found, by the Department, to have resorted to fragmentation of units with intent to claim SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE. It was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, who clubbed the clearances of the various units of M/s. Metafab and confirmed a demand of duty of ₹ 18,70,451/- against M/s. Metafab on the goods cleared in excess of the maximum limit of aggregate value of clearances prescribed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturers of final product on account of the fact that the payment of differential duty by the input-manufacturers was consequential to detection of their fraudulent evasion of duty. It was also pointed out that the job-workers had taken the Modvat credit in question without filing the necessary declaration under Rule 57G. The declarations were filed much later. The delay was not condoned by. the Assistant Commissioner for a valid reason, which was that the payment of differential duty on the inputs by the input-manufacturers was consequent on detection of fraudulent evasion of duty. Ld. Counsel submitted that such a ground for denial of Modvat credit was not valid for any period prior to 0 1.03.1997. The periods of dispute in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that reason stated by the Assistant Commissioner for not condoning the delay is not valid. After amendment of Rule 57G by Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 07.02.1999, Modvat credit on input was not to be denied on the sole ground of delayed filing of declaration. The Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Khamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2000 (121) ELT247 (Tri.-LB)held that the provisions of the amended Rule could be applied to a pending Modvat case. Accordingly, in the instant case, we hold that, under Rule 57G as amended, non-filing or delayed filing of declaration by M/s. Blue Mountain and M/s. Precious Equipments was not a good ground for denying them the benefit of input duty credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
