TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur, reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal). 2. Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants in respect of Jet Driers and in respect of Electrical Hoist. The credit in respect of the first item has been denied on the ground that the said goods were received in the appellants' factory during March, 1997 whereas the declaration was filed on 14-8-1997 i.e. after the period of three months from the date of receipt of such capital goods. The appellants' stand is that though the goods were received by them in March, 1997, but they were not registered with the Central Excise Authorities during that period as they were still in the process of erection of their factory. They were registered with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ires every manufacturer is to file a declaration with the Central Excise Authorities. As during the relevant time, they were not manufacturers having not been registered with the Central Excise Authorities, the provisions of the said Rule cannot be invoked against them for denying the benefit of Credit under the provisions of Rule 57Q. 3. In respect of the second item i.e. Electrical Hoist, Credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that there is no sufficient explanation for delayed filing of declaration. In that case, the goods were received in the factory on 2-6-97 and the declarations were filed on 14-8-97 i.e. admittedly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the capital goods. Shri Chakraborty su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....travention of the provisions of Rule 57T, which cannot be relaxed in any circumstances. He, further, submits that in respect of Electrical Hoist, no sufficient valid reason has been given by the appellants for late filing of the declaration and as such, the same has rightly not been condoned by the Assistant Commissioner. Further, distinguishing the case of Seven Hills Papers (supra), from the facts of the present case, he submits that at the period in that case was 1994 and it was observed by the Bench that the position was not clear at the relevant time as regards the applicability of Rule 57T. In the instant case, the period involved is 1997 and by that time, the law had become settled and the appellants should have known that the declar....