9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -99. Installation certificates were submitted by the appellants on 4-7-99. Before commercial production, the appellants filed a declaration on 23-6-99 under Rule 57T (3) along with a letter explaining the reasons for delayed submission of the declaration and prayed for allowing the credit of duty paid on both the fermenting machines used for manufacture of tea in their factory. 2. The Assistant Commissioner however refused to condone the delay for filing the declaration under Rule 57T(3) by observing that he has powers only to condone the delay of 3 months period from the date of receipt of the capital goods under Rule 57T(3). Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellants filed an appeal thereagainst which was rejected by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RLT 575 wherein the question raised before it, whether an assessee can avail credit in respect of inputs without filing the declaration or not was required not to be answered by taking note of the said sub-heading 13. He also draws my attention to the clarification issued by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-99 wherein a direction has been given to the authorities not to disallow the credit on the ground of minor procedural lapses in filing the declaration. He submits that in the present case admittedly they have filed declaration and the only lapse is that it has been filed late but in any case before the installation of the machines in question and before commercial production of the tea. As such submits the ld. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same being exempted and the appellants were not entitled to credit. However, tea became dutiable with effect from 1-3-99 and inasmuch as the two machines in question were still lying uninstalled in the appellants' factory, they were entitled to avail the credit of duty paid on the same subject to observance of requisite procedural formalities. The declaration was filed by them on 23-6-99. The entire dispute raised revolves around as to whether the said declaration filed on 23-6-99 after a period of three months from the date of tea becoming excisable should be made the basis for denial of the credit or not. I find that the Tribunal in the case of J.B.M. Tools referred (supra) by taking note of the amended provisions of Rule 57T(13) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
