JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 40,782/-(rupees forty thousand seven hundred eighty two) confirmed by the authorities below by rejecting the modvat credit in respect of nuts, bolts and screws, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. There is no dispute by the authorities below that such nuts, bolts and spares used by the appellant on different machineries are capital goods, inasmuch as the same are used for replacing the old and worn out parts of the capital goods. However, the credit has been disallowed on the ground that in their declaration filed under Rule 57T, the name and chapter heading of the machinery in which such nuts and bolts would be used by the appellants has not been described. As per the appellants such description in the declaration filed under Rule 57T is not possible inasmuch as at the time of receipt of nuts and bolts, the appellant is not aware as into which particular machinery, the said nuts and bolts would be used. However, they submit that a proper record was maintained by them at the time of use of such nuts and bolts and it is clear from such records that in which machinery the same have been used. He submits that such records were produced before the original adjudicating authority, who has failed to look into the same, but rejected the benefit the benefit of credit on the preliminary ground of non-declaration of final product in Rule 57T declaration.
3. I have also heard Shri A.K.Mondal, Id. JDR for the Revenue which emphasizes that Rule 57T is very clear requiring the assessee to declare the name and chapter heading of the capital goods in which such nuts and bolts would be used by the assessees. This having not been done by the appellant, modvat has been rightly denied to them.
4. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides. The benefit of the credit has been disallowed only on the ground that as per Rule 57T. the assessee is required to disclose the name of the machinery along with chapter Sub-heading while purchasing the spares etc. and in the absence of the same there is very possibility that these spares would be fitted on machineries other than described under Rule 57Q. On the other hand the appellants have contended that such declaration in respect of general purpose items is not possible. I fully agree with the above contention of the appellants. The purpose of filing of declaration under Rule 57T is to ensure the use of the capital goods in the proper manner. In case of practical difficulties, such purpose can be achieved by proper maintenance of records and by due intimations to the Revenue to that effect. In the present case at the time of receipt of general purpose nuts and bolts, appellants would not be aware of the fact that as to which particular nuts and bolts would be used in which particular machinery. As such the proper course is that at the time of issuance of nuts and bolts from their stock, a record indicating as to in which particular machinery the said nuts and bolts would be used, can serve the purpose of the declaration. The appellants contended that they have maintained such records and use of each and every nuts and bolts have been reflected therein. Accordingly I am of the view that the Asst. Commissioner should look into the said record of the appellant and should allow the modvat credit if such nuts and bolts have been used in the machineries described as capital goods under Rule 57Q, irrespective of the fact that the declaration did not indicate such machineries. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
Dictated in the Court.