TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tune of Rs. 75,501/-. 2. Heard Smt. Aruna Gupta learned DR who submits that the respondents have taken Modvat credit on Ship breaking scrap between 12-10-1991 and 28-11-1991. However it was found that this was done without filing a proper and pointed declaration under Rule 57G. As the same was mandatory requirement and not a procedural requirement, their subsequent declaration dated 18-12-1991 does not justify the said credits as the declaration was filed much after the last date of availment of Modvat credit. In this connection, she cited the case of PG Conductors as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 336 (Tri.) wherein it has been held that filing of declaration under Rule 57G is a mandatory and not a procedural requirement for the purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings under Rule 57-I, i.e., on a regular show cause notice issued under Rule 57-I, therefore it can be re-credited by them. (ii)  He submits that it is not correct to say that the first declaration was filed only on 18-12-1991 by them as in their reply to the said Superintendent's letter vide their letter dated 4-7-1994 (Pg. 5) the respondents had clearly mentioned that there was an original declaration filed with the Department, much in advance of the period during which this Modvat credit was taken to the effect that they shall be receiving inputs namely M.S. Scrap falling under Chapter 72 for the manufacture of the specified end-products. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Remson In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under Rule 57-I is a condition precedent for reversal of wrong credit. Since the letter dated 30-11-1993 was not such a notice in law, therefore the refund claim now cannot be denied. Hence there is no merit in the revenue appeal and that the Order-in-Appeal shall be allowed to stand. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the records of the case. The revenue's appeal is mainly on the ground that in the absence of a declaration under Rule 57G, the credit taken by the respondents was irregular and therefore there was nothing wrong in its reversal on the basis of the Superintendent's letter dated 30-11-1993. Since the respondents agreed to do so voluntarily, no Adjudication Proceedings were resorted to till ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chapter 72 was made much before taking the Modvat credit in this case. The issue to be decided therefore boils down to whether the nature of this declaration would be sufficient for the purposes of Rule 57G in this case or not. Learned DR has vehemently argued that the description M.S. Scrap being a very broad description, it would not cover M.S. Scrap obtained from Ship breaking. However in view of the principles contained in the decision of Remson India Limited supra as well as Saket Steel Ltd. supra, I find that since Ship breaking scrap would also be M.S. Scrap falling under Chapter 72, therefore this statutory requirement under Rule 57G would be satisfied in this case. Secondly I find that in view of the case laws cited as noted supra....