9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have been disallowed. The ratio of the case law referred to does not apply to the present issue as declaration was filed in those cases. Filing of declaration is a basic requirement provided in the rule as such appellants have no case whatsoever and their appeal is rejected. However, as regards penalty, I hold that appellants having got the new registration and in the given circumstances, imposition of penalty is uncalled for and I waive off the same completely." 2.The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants manufacture B.A. Wire. They are availing of the credit of duty taken on the inputs under modvat scheme. Scrutiny of the records revealed that the appellants availed Modvat credit of Rs. 12,44,456/- during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock on date of fling the declaration. Ld. Counsel submits that filing of declaration under Rule 57H was only a procedural requirement and, therefore he submits that the substantive benefit of modvat credit should not be denied to them. In support of his contention, he cites and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Safex Fire Services [1996 (81) E.L.T. 174]. 5.Ld. Advocate also submits that the appellants are maintaining modvat accounts/records in RG 23A Part I II. He submits that opening balance of the stock of wire rods as on 1-5-1995 is indicated in the RG 23A Part-I and day to day issues are also shown therein. He submits that the appellants by their letter dated 25-4-1995 had intimated to the Asst. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were received. We also note that in RG 23A Part II the availability of credit has been shown but taking of credit inputs wise on the stock held has not been shown and thus we find that these documents do not show the actual state of things. We have also seen the letter dated 20-4-1995 written to the Asst. Commissioner by the appellants. We note that in this letter, the appellants are only seeking certain permission. There is no mention of availment of modvat credit under Rule 57H. Thus, the documents relied upon by the appellants do not support their case. We find that filing of declaration under Rule 57H has a definite purpose inasmuch on the date of filing this declaration not only the total duty paid is required to be substantiated but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
