Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2005 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 112 - HC - Central ExciseCenvat/Modvat - Duty paid on capital goods - declaration - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 57-T(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the respondent to avail the modvat credit on ground of delayed filing of declaration ? - HELD THAT:- The substantive requirement of availing MODVAT credit of Duty Paid on the inputs or capital goods received in factory is that such goods must have suffered excise duty required to be paid thereon. Payment of such excise duty must be evidencing by relevant document that inputs on which MODVAT credit can be availed under Rule 57-G or capital goods in respect of which MODVAT credit can be availed under Rule 57-Q or 57-R must be received in and used in the manufacturing of end products in the factory. If these conditions are fulfilled then procedural lapses on the part of the assessee in making of declaration or furnishing incomplete particulars should not come in the way of assessee in availing MODVAT benefit is clear intent of insertion of sub-rule 13 with effect from 9-2-99. Our above conclusion is also fortified with the contemporaneous circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs which clearly says that merely procedural lapses be not allowed to defeat the modvat credit benefit, if substantive conditions about payment of Duty and user of goods in manufacture of end product in factory are fulfilled. In the present case as per finding reached there is no complaint that assessee manufacturer has not satisfied the said substantive conditions for availing the MODVAT credit but only lapse alleged is filing of delayed declaration. Thus, conclusion reached by the Tribunal with aid of sub-rule (13) of Rule 57-T that this lapse cannot disentitle the manufacturer from availing Modvat credit does not require any interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
|