Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1172 - AT - Central ExciseMODVAT credit - period from October, 1999 to December, 1999 - manufacture of sugar and molasses, falling under chapter 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Rule 57 G/ 57 T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - welding electrodes - denial on the ground that some of the disputed goods are not covered in the definition of capital goods - denial also on the ground that Non-filing of declaration by appellant before taking credit. Welding electrodes - Held that: - With regard to the eligibility of modvat benefit on welding electrodes, the Tribunal in the earlier round of proceedings has decided negatively, against which the appellant has not preferred any appeal before the higher appellate authorities. Thus, I am not expressing any opinion on this aspect and the original authority is at liberty to recover the same, if not already paid by the appellant. Non-filing of declaration by appellant before taking credit - Held that: - With regard to non-filing of declaration by the appellant before taking modvat credit, I find that the receipt and utilization of the impunged goods have not been disputed by the authorities below. Thus, in such an event, non-filing will be construed as mere procedural lapse, for which the substantive right conferred under the statute cannot be whittled down and the benefit cannot be denied to the appellant. Hence I am of the view that denial of modvat benefit on the ground of non-filing of declaration is not a justifiable ground and as such, the appellant is eligible for the cenvat credit on these point. Eligibility as capital goods - Held that: - With regard to denial of modvat benefit on the ground that the disputed goods are not covered under the definition of capital goods, I find that the authorities below have not recorded any specific reason in support of their contention. It is observed that the appellant has given ample justification in their reply to the show cause notice, as well as in the appeal memorandum filed before the First Appellate Authority, explaining the reasons for their eligibility to the modvat benefit. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Original Authority for consideration of the submissions made before him, by the appellant with regard to the eligibility aspect of the disputed goods, and thereafter for passing a reasoned and speaking order. The appellant is eligible for the modvat benefit which was disallowed to it for non filing of declaration. With regard to the dispute about coverage of capital good under the definition, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority for passing a reasoned and speaking order, taking into consideration the submissions made/ to be made by the appellant. The penalty imposed under Rule 173 Q in the impugned order is set aside - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant - matter on remand.
|