1997 (4) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Rules in favor of appellant, waives pre-deposit. Delay condonable per circular. Goods deemed capital. Stay petition disposed.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The issue of delay in taking ... Condonation of delay in taking MODVAT credit - effect of clarificatory circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs - MODVAT credit declaration requirement - capital goods classification under Rule 57T(2) - sufficiency of technical certificate for identification of goods - dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penaltyCondonation of delay in taking MODVAT credit - effect of clarificatory circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs - MODVAT credit declaration requirement - Whether delay in filing the manufacturer's declaration before taking MODVAT credit disentitled the appellants to credit and whether such delay is condonable in view of the Board's circular. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Central Board of Excise and Customs by Circular No. 181/15/96-CX dated 7-3-1996 had examined the matter and clarified that credit should not be denied merely because the declaration had not been filed by the manufacturer before taking credit of duty. The consignments in dispute were received between 24-1-1995 and 13-3-1995 and declarations were filed between 25-1-1995 and 14-3-1995, whereas MODVAT credit was taken after 31-3-1995. Applying the Board's clarificatory circular, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the declaration did not justify denial of MODVAT credit and therefore the applicants' claim was covered by the circular.Delay in filing the declaration did not bar MODVAT credit; the Board's clarificatory circular covers the applicants' case and the delay is condoned.Capital goods classification under Rule 57T(2) - sufficiency of technical certificate for identification of goods - Whether the goods on which MODVAT credit was taken qualify as capital goods under Rule 57T(2) having regard to the requirement of complete description, brand name and identifying particulars. - HELD THAT: - The Collector (Appeals) had noted that complete description for certain items was not given as required by Rule 57T(2), which demands furnishing of complete description, brand name and identifying particulars. On prima facie examination the Tribunal found that the applicants had filed a Chartered Engineer's certificate that provided clear description, brand name and identifying particulars showing the items to be accessories, spares or component parts of capital goods. The Tribunal accepted that, on the material before it at this stage, the particulars required by Rule 57T(2) were furnished by the technical certificate and accordingly treated the goods as falling within the scope of capital goods for the purpose of the appeal.Prima facie the Chartered Engineer's certificate supplies the requisite identifying particulars and the goods are to be treated as capital goods under Rule 57T(2) for the purposes of this stay.Final Conclusion: On the basis of the Board's clarificatory circular and the Chartered Engineer's certificate, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and disposed of the stay petition in favour of the appellants. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The issue of delay in taking Modvat credit was condonable as per a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The goods were considered capital goods based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate. The stay petition was disposed of accordingly.