Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 797 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTAvailment of Modvat credit - Whether the applicant had adhered to the provision of Rule 57-T of the Rules in seeking a declaration for availing Modvat credit - Held that:- it is not disputed that the goods were received in the factory premises and was consumed for the purpose of erection of shades for boiler houses, etc. It is also not disputed that the goods so received showed evidence of payment of duty on such goods. When these two conditions are existing which are the mandatory requirement, in such case, Modvat credit should be allowed and could not be denied on the ground that there was a procedural lapse in not applying for a declaration within a stipulated period. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57-T of the Rules clearly indicates that if the declaration is not filed within the specified period, the same can be considered after the expiry of period on sufficient cause being shown. In the instant case, the applicant clearly stated that they were not aware of such procedure for claiming Modvat credit and the moment they came to know applied for Modvat credit. The fact, that the applicant applied for Modvat credit has not been disputed. Once this is not disputed, it is not open to the respondents to deny Modvat credit on the ground that permission was not granted by the competent authority. There is no evidence that the application of the applicant was rejected. So, even if there is a procedural lapse, it does not mean that Modvat credit could not be availed. By applying the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad vs. Hindalco Industries Pvt. Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 254 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Rule 57-G of the Rules is only procedural in nature. Therefore, Modvat credit cannot be denied on a technical ground that the procedure for availing Modvat credit was not followed at the material moment of time. Also the Tribunal was not justified in interpreting Rule 57-T(3) of the Rules in a technical manner holding it to be a mandatory provision. - Decided in favour of appellant
|