9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 20-3-2002 (Annexure "D") passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Vadodara by which the Commissioner set aside the order dated 29-1-1998 (Annexure "C") of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I, Mehsana allowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,92,026/- and discharging the show cause notice dated 26-9-1994. 2.The petitioner-Company is a private limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of polyester textured yarn. The factory of the Company is closed down for the last several years and the properties of the Company have been taken over by and auctioned by GSFC. In the year 1994-95, the Company was manufacturing textured filament yarn. The yarns were covered under the Proforma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the consequential procedural change regarding maintenance of separate registers. The petitioners, therefore, took credit of duties paid on four consignments of yarns which were received in the petitioners' factory on 23rd May, 24th Mary, 2nd June and 6th June 1994 and entered the same in register form RG-23 under Rule 56A on the respective dates. Those transactions were also reported to the Range Superintendent while filing returns for the months of May and June 1994. On the basis of the said four transactions, the petitioners took Proforma Credit of Rs. 1,92,026/-. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division-II, Mehsana issued show cause notice dated 26-9-1994 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the above credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. It appears that the notice sent by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not received by the petitioners because the notice was probably served on the petitioners' factory which was closed and the factory was taken over by the GSFC. Ultimately, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the absence of the petitioners and allowed the appeal on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to condone the lapse of not making the entries in register form RG-23A under Rule 57A and that the credit could not be claimed under Rule 56A which was deleted w.e.f. 20-5-1994. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere also reported to the concerned Superintendent in the returns filed for the months of May and June 1994, the Assistant Collector did not act without jurisdiction in allowing the petitioners Modvat credit under Rule 57A. Hence, the impugned orders of the Commissioner and the Tribunal deserve to be set aside. At the same time, we do find some substance in the submission made by Mr. Asim Pandya for the authorities that if the authorities go on condoning such procedural lapses it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the department to get compliance with the procedural rules which are also framed with a definite object in mind and, therefore, such rules cannot be allowed to be bypassed without the assessee suffering any detriment whatsoe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
