ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. Modvat credit of Rs.30,607/- has been disallowed to the appellants on the ground that the same was taken on sleeve nuts, machined sprinkler body and seal retainer and brass gland without submitting any declaration under the provision of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalty of Rs.3,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants.
2. I have heard Shri J.P.Khaitan, Id.Advocate and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, Id. JDR for the Revenue. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below have been assailed on merits as also on the point of limitation. The period involved int eh present appeal is from 16.8.88 to 12.12.89 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 27.8.93. The appellants have declared main sleeve as one of their input whereas the goods involved are parts of main sleeve. As per the appellants, the modvat credit so availed was utilised by them only after filing specific declaration in December, 1989.
3. As regards limitation, it is the appellants’ contention that RT 12 Returns were being submitted regularly and were being assessed to duty. At no stage any discrepancy was found or pointed out by the Revenue. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty. As such larger period cannot be invoked against them. He submits that even in one or two of the cases, period involved is beyond even five years. Strong reliance is placed on the Tribunals’s decision in the case of Vikrant Television (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Collector of Central Excise & Customs reported in 1993 (64) ELT 339 (T) wherein it was held that non-inclusion of colour picture tubes in the declaration under Rule 57G will not amount to suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. the declaration was known to the Department and if, in spite of such non-declaration, they had taken the credit, it was for the department to take corrective action immediately. The declaration having been filed by them to the department, the omission is attributable to both sides and no charge of mis-statement or suppression can arise.
4. I find that the ratio as laid down in the above decision of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts in the instant case. the declaration describing the inputs s sleeve was filed by the appellants. The fact of availing the credit on the items in questions was before he Central Excise Authorities. There can be no malafide intention on the part of the appellants not to declare the input in more details and as a result to forego their right of modvat credit. The appellants have also filed RT-12 Returns regularly and the details regaring taking of credit in respect of the impugned items was made known to the Department. If the Department has failed to scrutinise the information and to take action within the limitation period, it has to suffer. As such, I hold that the demand in question is squarely barred by limitation. Appeal is thus allowed on the said ground.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.