TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants. 2. Heard Shri Vijayaraghavan, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri Sankaravadivelu, learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. Learned Consultant submits that the issue arose out of show cause notice dated 28-4-1995 covering the period October, 1994 to March, 1995 which raises three issues :- (a) Denial of Modvat credit due to lack of intimation under Rule 57T(2) as it then existed. (b) Denial of credit on number of specified items as they do not conform to the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. (c) Levy of penalty for the above infirmities. 4. Learned Consultant took us through the history of the evolution of Rule 57T(2) from May, 1994 onwards. He submitted that from M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as specified therein has been filed on 31-10-1994 after the goods were received on 11-10-1994. There are a number of other such declarations on record in the paper book from page 86 to page 189. Learned Consultant submits that since the copies of these declarations were received by the range Superintendent from both the sources i.e. from the assessee and Assistant Commissioner and the same were received by him within a few days of the receipt of the capital goods, therefore, there is substantive compliance of the intimation required to be filed under Rule 57T(2) and the range Superintendent was in a position to cause any verification, if he so thought it fit. Merely because the declaration is not exactly in the same proforma, does not mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. 48 (Tribunal) and Birla Ericson Opticals Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal) (v) Transformer :- Applying the ratio of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal) and Shri Gobind Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 162 (Tribunal) and Birla Ericson Opticals Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal). (vi) Carding Machine (Exacta Card) :- Learned Consultant submits that the machine was received by them on 19-2-1995 which date is not disputed. Therefore, the receipt is after the issue of Notification No. 60/94-C.E.(NT), dated 21-10-1994 and according to this on this carding machine Modvat credit is available under Rule 57Q as amended by this noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case. In particular we have scrutinised the format and contents of the declarations contained in pages 86 to 189 of the paper book. We find after a careful consideration of these declarations that the following facts emerge : - (a) Almost all the declarations have been filed after the receipt of the goods but within a few days thereon. Therefore, we find that there is no undue delay in filing these declarations. (b) That the same have been filed to the Assistant Commissioner in-charge, but a copy of that has also been given to the range Superintendent concerned. It is also on record that the Assistant Commissioner has endorsed a copy for having received these declarations along with a copy of the declaration to the range S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the capital goods as soon as possible, is clearly served by these declarations. It is not material whether you call such communications declarations or intimations; what is material is whether the purpose for which the rule requires such information to be made available to the departmental authorities is served or not. In this case the facts show as per our analysis above, that this purpose was served. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to conclude that irrespective of whether this rule is a procedural rule or substantive rule, we find that there was substantive compliance of whatever this rule requires in terms of this communication sent by the assessee. In this connection we also note that the show cause notice has not alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. supra, the Modvat credit would be available under Rule 57Q in this case. (iii) With respect to Air Compressor, we apply the ratio of Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd. supra and find that Modvat credit would be available under Rule 57Q. (iv) With respect to Control Panels, we apply the ratio of Hindustan Composites Ltd., Jindal Polyester and Birla Ericson Opticals case supra and find that Modvat credit would be available under Rule 57Q. (v) With respect to Transformer, we apply the ratio of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., Shri Gobind Mills Ltd. and Birla Ericson Opticals Ltd. case and find that Modvat credit would be available under Rule 57Q. (vi) With respect to availability of Modvat credit on Carding Machine, the i....