1999 (11) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erintendent and not with the Asstt. Commissioner as required under the rules. He refers to Rule 57H(4) which permits a manufacturer who has filed a declaration under sub-rule (1B) or sub-rule (3) to take credit after obtaining dated acknowledgement. The sub rule (1B) stipulates that the declaration shall be filed with the Asstt. Commissioner. Sub-rule (3) also provides declaration to be filed with the Asstt. Commissioner. The Department's interpretation is that since the declaration mentioned in Rule 57H is required to be filed with the Asst. Commissioner, the declaration filed with the Superintendent was not a correct and proper declaration and therefore taking of credit on the basis of such a declaration was not authorised. They have inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....L.T. 734 (Tribunal) in which a declaration under Rule 57G made to the Superintendent was held to be valid because the Superintendent was a part of the Divisional Office. 3. Ld. Counsel therefore submitted that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited above would clearly support the appellant's contention. Accordingly, the appeal also may be taken up and disposed of at this stage itself since the only question that has been raised therein is in relation to the validity of declaration filed before the Superintendent. 4. Ld. JDR, Shri D.K. Nayyar submitted that since the relevant rule specifically mentions the Asstt. Commissioner as the authority with whom the manufacturer has to file the declaration before taking credit, f....