TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses. In addition they have a distillary also. With the introduction of Modvat credit on capital goods with effect from 1-3-1994 the assessee, filed a declaration on 29-6-1994 stating inter alia that they were filing on declaration under Rule 57T for availing Modvat credit on capital goods and further indicated that the tariff classification and details of duty paid on capital goods has not been mentioned by them in the declaration as those were not known to them at that time. Promising to furnish detail as and when the same were available to them. The Assistant Collector was not satisfied with the declaration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted together with specifying the use of each capital goods declared. It was also alleged that the assessee was requested to submit an undertaking that the said capital goods will not be used in any way towards production of goods manufactured by the distillery unit installed in the factory. It was, therefore, alleged that since the final declaration was received only on 21-9-1994 and therefore, the Modvat credit taken from 1-9-1994 to 29-9-1994 was not admissible to the appellants. The Deputy Collector decided the case against the assessee. In appeal the ld. Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Collector. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants for the first time had submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rule 57T were completely complied with and there was nothing left to be complied with and therefore, Modvat credit has wrongly been denied. 4. The ld. Counsel also submitted that there is a provision under Rule 57T about late submission of declaration. He submits though not admitting that even if the declaration was filed late the delay upto one month in filing the declaration was condonable without prior permission of the AC. He submits that in their case the delay was only of 20 days and, therefore, it should have been condoned as such delay was condonable and that only a delay of more than one month required explanation. The ld. Counsel in support of his contention referred to the decision in the case of Prefect Industrial Corp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that no such proforma was prescribed was not based on facts. He submits that this becomes very clear when the Deputy Collector in his order referred to this aspect that the Assistant Collector, Barilley Division has issued clear guidelines. The ld. DR also submitted that the Assistant Collector required a specific undertaking from the assessee to declare that the capital goods on which Modvat credit was being claimed shall not be used in the distillary which was not done by the appellants, instead they filed a comprehensive declaration on 29-9-1994. In support of his contention he relied on the decision rendered in the case of Webel Tools (India) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1995 (79) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal) and in the c....