9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and therefore the credit was reversed 08.04.2000. The authorities later on while scrutinizing the quarterly RT 12 Return filed by the respondent, found that the respondent had availed the modvat credit of the same input on 31st August, 2000. The authorities issued Show cause notice to the respondent for reversal of modvat credit so availed by them on an allegation that they had re-credited the amount subsequently after the change of modvat/ Cenvat credit rules and illegally showing that the inputs were received after 01.04.2000. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order in original on the ground that the appellant had filed declaration of the identical ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent on the ground that they had, in order to avail ineligible modvat credit, indicated in the statutory returns the date of receipt of the inputs after 1st April, 2000. I gave my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned DR on this point. I find that the respondent, when they availed the modvat credit earlier i.e. on 24.03.2000, they had correctly availed the modvat credit. The denial of the modvat credit and reversal by the authorities on 08.04.2000 on the ground that declaration was not filed by the respondents was an incorrect proposition of the law during the relevant period. During the relevant period Rule 57G (11) of the Central Excise Rules was amended and it read as under:- "Credit under sub-rule (2) shall not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment. The reason that the Assistant Commissioner advances for not accepting the declaration is that sub-rule (13) does not "offer any protection in cases where no declaration at all is filed". This is the argument that the departmental representative reiterates. Clause (i) of sub-rule (13) refers to credit under Rule 57G and we are not concerned with that Clause (ii) has two parts. The first is applicable in cases where a declaration filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 57T "does not contain all the details required to be contained therein". The second deals with cases where "the manufacturer fails to comply with any other requirement" The only requirement other than the one contained in sub-rule (1) that we are able to visualize is that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
