ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva
1. This issue relates to modvat credit. Shri parameshwaran appearing for the appellants submitted that modvat credit for the slitting machines being capital goods has been disallowed on the ground that declaration was not filed in time. According to the department the party should have filed declaration within 3 months from the date of fabrication of the machine in question. He also submitted that the party filed modvat credit on 27th December 1994 much prior to taking the credit as the declaration was duty filed on 22nd December 1994. He submitted that since this is only a procedural lapse, this should not come in the way of denial of justice. Further, he submits that the very issue has come up for consideration before the Chennai Bench with reference to the DG sets and in the similar circumstances the bench allowed the appeal filed by the party. Not only appeal was allowed but also reference application filed by the department has been rejected as per order No. 64/2000 dated 26.9.2000.
2. Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Department in rejecting the modvat credit on the ground that since the declaration was not field in time. She also submitted that the reference application referred to above was in different context and not relevant to the facts of the present dispute.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse, if any, should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. Also, taking note of the Order referred to by the Counsel wherein it observes that the tribunal in such circumstances held that where even non-following of prescribed procedure for availability of modvat credit, should not be denied. The bench also relied upon the (SCI) of the Tribunal in case of Genset India (P) Ltd., reported in 1998 (28) ELT 772 wherein the duty liability of diesel generating set was under dispute and the Tribunal held that in such dispute matters, the question of procedural violation does not arise and the modvat credit matters, the question of procedural violation does not arise and the modvat credit has to be granted. In facts and circumstances following the decisions referred to by the Counsel I accept the contention of the party and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court on 31.07.2001)