TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectification of mistake application seeks rectification of an error which according to the petitioner-applicant is apparent on the face of the records in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 6-10-1987 in Order No. 725/87. 3. Shri R.P. Gupta, Director of the petitioner-applicant company and Mrs. Vidyalakshmi, representing the petitioner-applicant submitted that MODVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs by the petitioner on 1-4-1986 has been denied to the petitioner under the impugned order on the ground that the declaration filed under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 relating to MODVAT Scheme was acknowledged by the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. on 2-4-1986 and, therefore, the credits for 1-4-1986 and prior to ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration under Rule 57-G has been acknowledged by the jurisdictional Collector only on 2-4-1986 and under Rule 57G(2) a manufacturer who has filed a declaration under sub-rule (1) may after obtaining the acknowledgement of the Asstt. Collector take the credit of the duly paid on the inputs received by him. On going through the records we find that on 31-3-1986 the petitioner has addressed a communication to the Asstt. Collector purporting to be a declaration under Rule 57-G of the Modvat Rules. This was presented with the Range Supdt., Hyderabad and has been acknowledged by him on 31-3-1986. It has been forwarded to the Asstt. Collector, Hyderabad who had received it on 2-4-1986. It is not disputed that the inputs in question have suffered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Modvat Rules and it cannot be gainsaid that Rule 57G(2) is only a procedural formality. On going through the records we find that the declaration made on 31-3-1986 and acknowledged by the Supdt. of the Range on 31-3-1986, has been appended as part of the appeal records along with the appeal papers in addition to a specific plea having been raised in the appeal grounds. Evidently this relevant piece of information which forms part of the records and which ought to have been taken into consideration has been lost sight of inadvertently and this omission to consider the said evidence on record is only an error apparent on the face of the records. Apart from it, when the inputs in question have suffered duty and the petitioner is otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
