9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner. Mr. Raghul Balaji for the Respondents. ORDER [Order per Chitra Venkataraman, J].-1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to direct the first respondent Tribunal to state the case on the following question of law set out in the petition for its opinion: "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in ordering for extension of Modvat benefit to the assessee who have not followed a procedure and have not filed any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?" 2. The assessee engaged in the manufacture of Drip Irrigation System claimed exemption in respect of the HDPE/LDPE pipes cleared during the period 1.10.1995 to 4.3.1996, used in man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of MODVAT credit in the absence of any declaration filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the appeal filed by the assessee as against the classification issued has not reached finality. However, the appeal preferred by the Revenue before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S.FORMICA INDIA DIVISION Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE reported in 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC) that the assessee was entitled to have the benefit of MODVAT credit under Rule 57-G. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred Reference Application before the first respondent Tribunal to refer the matter to the High Court on the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the second respondent relied on a decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM VS. M/S.CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, METTUR DAM reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 253. In the said decision, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in M/S.FORMICA INDIA DIVISION Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE reported in 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC), the Division Bench of this Court took the view that MODVAT credit could not be denied to the assessee on a mere technical ground that the procedure prescribed for availment of credit had not been followed at the material time. This Court held: "Rule 56-A relating to set off of duty is a pre-cursor to the Modvat Scheme, both of which are schemes intended to obviate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
