TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee. - Ex Appeal No. 1765/06 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri S C Kamra, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commr (AR) ORDER Per Raju The Appellants, M/s GAIL (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of LPG Gas and Polymers. During the period from February, 1999 to February, 2000, the Appellants were in process of installation of their LPG Plant. The contract for the installation of plant was given to various contractors. These contractors were importing capital goods and installing different components of the plant. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following judgements in support of their claim: (i) Union of India Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.: 2006 (204) ELT 230 (Raj.); (ii) CCE, Chennai Vs. ITC Ltd.: 2008 (224) ELT 226 (Mad.); (iii) CCE, Delhi III Vs. A.B.Card Clothing Pvt. Ltd.: 2008 (222) ELT 359 ( P H); (iv) Kamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut: 2000 (121) ELT 247 (Tri.-LB) (v) Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Shillong: 2007 (212) ELT 156 (Tri.-Kol.) (vi) Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur: 2014 (307) ELT 151 (Tri.-Mumbai). They also cited a Circular No.441/7/99-CX dated 23.02.1999 . They have also pointed out that in February, 1999, sub-rule (13) of Rule 57T, was introduced, which reads as follows: (13) Credit under sub-rule ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants have not filed any application under Rule 57T (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, they submitted that since there was an inordinate delay in filing the declarations, it was beyond the power of the Assistant Commissioner to condone the same. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the receipt of goods and duty paid character, has not been challenged. In few cases, certain objections other than of delay, have been raised in the show-cause notice. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Union of India Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) ELT 230 (Raj.) , has observed as under: 14 . If we read in that light sub rule (13) of Rule 57T, it leaves no room of doubt that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads to irresistible conclusion that while requirement of sub-rule (1) to file declaration is necessary, the within limitation prescribed under sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (3) which operates as proviso thereto, is not mandatory requirement. If other substantial conditions have been satisfied the MODAVT credit availed on Capital goods is not to be withdrawn............................................. The other decision cited by the Appellants also proceeds on the same line, in so much as interpreting sub-rule 13 of Rule 57T, they concluded that so long as receipt and duty paid nature of the goods is not challenged, the delay in filing the declaration can be condoned. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgement in cases where sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
