9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the following circumstances. 4. The petitioner, a Limited Company, claimed Modvat credit in relation to various capital goods by filing a declaration under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules,1944 (the Rules) on 3-10-1994. Sometime in February,1995 during course of audit, Superintendent of Central Excise conveyed to the petitioner by communication dated 18-2-1995 that one of the declarations for Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 72,900/- was in relation to an 'input' viz. copper chromate catalyst which was not an item of capital goods and hence the same was remitted so as to enable the petitioner to avail the credit under Rule 57G of the Rules. Accordingly, necessary declaration under Rule 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instance of the Department, transferred the credit from capital goods category to inputs category and Rule 57I as stood during the period when credit was initially taken provided for computation of limitation from the date of taking credit. I am not able to accept this plea for the reason that it was not raised in the appeal memorandum and further the applicants have not offered any explanation for their non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing when this point could have been urged before the Bench. Therefore, there is no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed". 8. As can be seen from the aforesaid order made on Rectification of Mistake Application, CESTAT has proceeded on the footing that the plea that the credit wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months prescribed in Rule 57(5) because the appellant had originally submitted declaration including this item also along with the other 16 items which were capital goods. This was within the prescribed period. It was only after the Superintendent (Audit) pointed out the mistake, the appellant could submit correct declaration as inputs". 10. When the application for waiver of duty and penalty came up before the Tribunal this is what was recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 13-1-1999. "xxx xxx Originally it would appear that the appellant had taken the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. Later on it would appear as per the advice of the Excise authorities, they had taken the Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The department felt there has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz non-application of mind or non-acceptance of the fact that there exists an error apparent on record. It is necessary that the Tribunal realises that it commands respect not only because of quick disposal of matters before it but also because quick disposal is coupled with substantial justice. The Tribunal cannot have as its goal only quick disposal at the cost of justice. 13. There is one more aspect of the matter. While dismissing the ROM Application the Tribunal has stated that the applicant had not offered any explanation for non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal when the point could have been urged before the Bench. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
