2004 (2) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal which has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the appellants of Rs. 9,69,765/-. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the capital goods on which the Modvat credit has been disallowed were duly declared by the appellants in the declaration filed under Rule 57-T and tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to make a specific declaration regarding the capital goods. That declaration was given by them only on 30-5-1995 but the credit was availed by them during the period 2-12-1994 to 29-12-1994, much prior to the filing of the declaration regarding the specific capital goods. The Addl. Commissioner through the order-in-original allowed the credit and dropped the show cause notice, dated 7-5-1995 issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y availed on the capital goods. Therefore, the Asstt. Commissioner could not pass any order on the application of the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, has rightly ignored the order of the Asstt. Commissioner condoning the delay for a period which was not within his competency to condone. 5. The ratio of the law laid do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X