TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the appellant had only grievance that Modvat credit of Rs. 5,17,468.87 was not granted by the authorities below by mis-construction of provisions contained in Rule 57T of Central Excise Rules, 1944 holding that the declaration as to receipt of capital goods was filed beyond three months, contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 57T. He further submitted that in view of specific provisions inserted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 230 (Raj.). He drew attention to Para 17 of the reported judgment and submitted that Clause (ii) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T confers right to Modvat credit in respect of capital goods filing the declaration beyond extended period and denial of such credit shall defeat spirit of justice and would result in tyranny. The relevant part of the judgment cited was : 17........... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rescue which has specifically directed that all pending cases shall be governed by sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T to render justice to the aggrieved. Such submission was also judicially re-cognised in terms of Para 18 of the reported judgment aforesaid which reads as under : 18. Our above conclusion is also fortified with the contemporaneous circular issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as considering the submissions of both sides, there is no alternative view that can be taken contrary to the decision of the judicial pronouncement aforesaid. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit for the clear reason of receiving capital goods and installation thereof in its factory as well as submitting documents for the Modvat credit. Substantial provisions of law hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
