ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the MODVAT Credit was denied to the respondents only on procedural lapse.
2. The contention of the revenue is that the respondents availed the benefit of credit in respect of the duty-paid inputs, which were received prior to filing of declaration under Rule 57 G of the Rules. As the inputs were received prior to filing of the declaration, they are required to apply for condonation of delay in filing the declaration. The respondents also filed their claim under Rule 57 H of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit on the ground that in the application for condonation of delay no valid reason was mentioned and the respondents also had withdrawn their claim under Rule 57 H of the rules. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that these are procedural lapses. The revenue is relying upon the Larger decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi vs Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (T).
3. Shri K.P. Jain, Director, appearing on behalf of the respondents, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
4. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that requirement of rules is mandatory.
5. In view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that non-compliance to the provisions of rules, is procedural, hence is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. (Pronounced in Court).