TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants appeal for Modvat credit, correcting clerical error in raw material declaration.</h1> <h3>JK. SYNTHETICS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR</h3> JK. SYNTHETICS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 191 (Tribunal) Issues:Modvat credit denial due to a declaration error under Rule 57G for phosphoric acid as raw material for nylon filament yarn.Analysis:The case involved the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants based on the failure to file a declaration under Rule 57G for phosphoric acid as a raw material for nylon filament yarn. The appellants had submitted a declaration under Rule 57G(1) but mistakenly indicated phosphoric acid as an input for polyester filament yarn instead of nylon filament yarn. The Department contended that since no declaration was made for phosphoric acid as an input for nylon filament yarn, the credit was denied.The appellant's counsel argued that the declaration error was a typographical mistake and that phosphoric acid was used in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn, as acknowledged by the Asstt. Collector. The counsel cited previous Tribunal decisions to support the argument that substantial compliance should not be overlooked due to technicalities. The appellants sought the setting aside of the lower authorities' order denying Modvat credit.The learned SDR reiterated the lower authorities' findings, maintaining that the denial of credit was justified.After hearing both sides, the judge observed that the appellants had indeed filed a declaration under Rule 57G, declaring phosphoric acid as an input. The judge noted that the Asstt. Collector had confirmed that phosphoric acid was used in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, the judge concluded that the mention of phosphoric acid under polyester filament yarn was a clerical mistake and a procedural irregularity. Citing precedents, the judge held that such errors should not deprive the appellants of Modvat credit. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
