Judgements

M/S Swil Ltd. vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Cal.Iv on 26 June, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Calcutta
M/S Swil Ltd. vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Cal.Iv on 26 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (138) ELT 292 Tri Kolkata


ORDER

Smt. Archana Wadhwa

1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty and penalty, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. Accordingly, I have heard Shri B.N. chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the Revenue.

2. I find that the modvat credit has been disallowed to the appellants in respect of capital goods on the ground that the declarations under the provisions of Rule 57T have been filed after the receipt of the capital goods in their factory. The appellants contention is that the declaration was filed with their range Superintendent immediately after receiving the capital goods in their factory, who advised them to file the declaration with the Assistant Commissioner.Thereafter, the declaration was filed with the Assistant Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner should have condoned the delay in filing the declaration. Instead of doing so, he refused to condone the delay by observing that no reason has been given by the appellants for late filing of the declarations.

3. I find that the above observations of the original adjudicating authority is not correct inasmuch as the appellants in their reply to the show-cause notice filed on 30th March, 1997 have very clearly brought out the above facts.If the declaration was filed with the Superintendent and the modvat credit was taken thereafter, the same should have been considered as a sufficient cause by the Assistant Commissioner for condonation of delay. I also take into consideration of CBEC’s letter F.No. 267/8/96-CX-8 dated 7.3.96 clarifying that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration has been filed after the receipt of the capital goods. Taking all the factors into consideration, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in the light of the appellants’ explanation and the observation made by me in the foregoing paragraph. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.Stay Petition also gets disposed of.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.