ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. Today when the application for stay is posted for hearing it is felt that the appeal itself could be disposed of Hence I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.
2. Shri A.P. Kolte appeared for the appellants and Shri K.L. Ramteke appeared for the Department. In this case the appellant has taken the Modvat credit for the payment of duty of final product without filing the declaration under Rule 57G at the time of taking credit and the such declaration was filed a week thereafter. When the declaration was filed a plea was made by the applicant for condoning the delay without mentioning the reasons. Therefore the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit for the period prior to 29-11-1995 on the ground that no reason was given this order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal before me.
3. Shri A.P. Kolte states that modvat credit rules as contained in Rule 57G(5) read with proviso states that the discretion has been vested with the Assistant Commissioner for condoning the delay. Shri Kolte emphasis the fact that even though the application does not state the reasons, the appellant mentioned it orally before the Assistant Commissioner about the reasons for filing such application. He also relies on the judgment of the Tribunal Chamundi Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore – 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 where at paragraph 4 the Tribunal discussed as to how under the Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G has to be dealt with by the authorities.
4. I have considered the submission made by Shri Kolte. It is an admitted fact hear (sic) that no reasons has been mentioned in the application filed by the assessee Rule 57G(5) says that application filed under the sub-rule that when there is a delay in filing such declaration Assistant Collector may for reasons to be recorded in writing condone the delay in filing of such declaration. Provisions contained in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G provides for the exercise of that power by the Assistant Collector for recording the reasons for exclusing (sic) the delay. When the applicant does not mention any reasons in the application, how could Assistant Commissioner exercise that power. If an applicant seeks an indulgence from the public authority, unless the applicant helps public authority to come to be a decision within the town corner of the provisions of law, the public authority cannot help the assessee. This is very peculiar case where I am unable to come to a conclusion in favour of the assessee as filing declaration is a mandatory one as has held by us in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise -1997 (93) E.L.T. 198. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am constrained to disagree with the arguments made by the ld. Counsel. Appeal stands dismissed. In view thereof the stay petition also stands dismissed.