2005 (4) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. - Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Appellant and Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR for Respondent. Prima facie the case is in favour of Appellant. Therefore, I waive the condition of pre-deposit and heard the appeal on merit. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that the Commissioner disallowed the credit on M.S. Joist only on the ground that the goods have been received by the Appellant in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their factory on 2-2-96 and had been properly accounted for in their Books of Accounts. The said goods had been used in the factory in manufacture of dutiable goods. Therefore, he submits that the substantial benefit of Modvat should not be denied on technical grounds. In support of his argument, he relies on the decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 2004 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-1999. Similar view was expressed by the Delhi Bench in case of Paharpur Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 252 (Tri. - Del.) that the - Modvat on capital goods - Declaration delay filed after the prescribed period of three mon....