2000 (9) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....question of its liability to pay duty did not arise. The matter was resolved by Order-in-Original No. 95/95 dated 19-5-95 in terms of Rule 57T(1) of C.E. Rules. Appellants thereafter within a period of three months from the date of the order filed declaration on 21-8-95 and within one month from the date of filing of the declaration had paid duty and had sought for taking Modvat credit. It was noted that there was no dispute about the item being modvatable and the credit being granted. The question which was before the Tribunal was with regard to duty on which the declaration was required to be filed and taking of Modvat credit. The Tribunal after due consideration held that the question of paying duty or filing declaration did not arise ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the following two questions to High Court :- '1.      Whether the order of Appellate Authority was right in granting Modvat credit on DG set wherein the assessee had suppressed the facts of manufacture of DG Set and other machineries without intimating the department. When the provisions of Rule 57R(6) of CER, 1944, does not allow the modvat credit on capital goods has not been paid by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. 2.       Whether Tribunal was correct in upholding the assessee's appeal by granting Modvat credit on DG set which was installed during April '94 and declaration was filed after a lapse of one year, contravening the p....