9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has disallowed the Modvat credit on two grounds, firstly, that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 57F(20) and secondly, no declaration was also filed within a period of six months. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision of the adjudicating authority by referring to the earlier judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal had dealt both the two reasons on basis of which the Modvat Credit was disallowed by the adjudicating authority in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment. It is useful to refer the para Nos. 2 and 3 of the Tribunal in order which are as follows : "(2) The perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not accepted the first ground for disallowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue has been considered by the appellate authority and for repelling the aforesaid contention following observations were made by the appellate authority : "The CEGAT in its decision in the case of Sushripad Chemicals [1996 (88) E.L.T. 109]. Shree Products v. CCE Pune [1999 (112) E.L.T. 1057], CCE, Coimbatore v. T.T. Maps Publication Ltd. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 404 & Ballarpur Industries v. CCE, Pune - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 812 has held that so long as the manufacturing unit remained intact & if the appellant continued to manufacture the very same goods out of the same inputs, the declaration already filed has to be considered adequate for Modvat purposes. Even if the declaration by the new unit is called for, it can only be construed to be a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of declaration filed by unit earlier existed in the premises without filing the declaration under Rule 57G or without seeking permission under Rule 57F(20) of the Rules. In so far as permission under Rule 57F(20) is concerned, finding has been recorded that said allegation was not made in the show cause notice, nor the assessee was required to seek permission under Rule 57F(20) when an allegation is not made in the notice. The adjudicating authority committed error in relying on the Provisions of 57F(20). The findings recorded by the Tribunal that show cause notice did not contain any allegation regarding violation of Rule 57F(20) has not been challenged. No such substantial question of law arises for consideration. In so far as filing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
