TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. [Order]. - The Appellants have filed two applications - one for extension of stay granted vide order No. S/343/94 dated 12-7-94 and the other for early hearing of this matter. I find that this appeal is of the year 1994 and though the stay had been granted on 12-7-94, the appeal could not be heard as due to various reasons this matter was not listed. Accordingly the early heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 3,76,259.94 against the appellant and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeal) vide the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4-5-94 upheld the Assistant Commissioner's orders. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 3.1 Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate, the learned Counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under Rule 57G. 3.2 Shri S. Gautam, the learned Departmental Representative, pleaded that the Modvat declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory for taking Modvat credit in respect of any inputs, that in this case, admittedly, the inputs had been received prior to the filing of declaration and, therefore, Modvat credit was not admissible and that the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while as per the records, the Modvat declaration was filed only on 5-3-93. From the Assistant Commissioner's order, I find that the receipt of inputs is not disputed. The only point of dispute is as to whether Modvat credit could be allowed even though the inputs had been received prior to the filing of Modvat declaration required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. On this issue, I find t....