TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odvat claim for Rs. 60, 90,338.37 paise under Rule 57H of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 under their letter dated 24.10.1992. The Assistant Commissioner, Chittorgarh under letter dated 18.11.1998 allowed the modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 1, 19,123/- but disallowed the balance credit amounting to Rs.59,71,215.37. The appellants filed appeal on 02.02.1999 against the said communication on the ground that their claim under Rule 57H was rejected without hearing the appellants and without issuing show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 15.11.1999 remanded the matter for re-adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Chittorgarh by his order dated 17.05.2000 holding that the condition of Rule 57H were not fulfilled by the appellants, disallowed the modvat credit of Rs. 65, 67,542.57. Thereafter, the appellants under letter dated 09.07.2001 insisted that disallowance of credit under Rule 57H did not disentitle the appellants to avail the said credit in terms of Rule 57G. Pursuant thereto, the appellants utilized the said credit in January, 2003 towards the payment of duty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere was no requirement of the departments consent to the appellants for availing and utilizing the credit earned on the inputs which were procured after 25.07.1991. He further submitted that while rejecting the application under 57H, the authority had not disputed the claim of the appellants about the receipt of the inputs after 25.07.1991. Besides the fact that such an application was filed only in October 1992 much after filing the required declaration under Rule 57G which was filed on 8th May 91 & 4th June 1991. Referring to the fact that the Deputy Commissioner while rejecting the application under Rule 57H had taken specific note of the fact that in order to grant an application under Rule 57H the inputs must have been received immediately before obtaining the acknowledgement of the declaration under Rule 57G and that the appellants had filed the declaration on 8th May 91 & 4th June 1991, whereas the application under 57H in October 1992 having been specifically noted by the Deputy Commissioner, clearly discloses that the authority was satisfied of the fact that the inputs were received after submission of declaration dated 8th May 91 & 4th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding receipt of the inputs in question after the receipt of the declaration under Rule 57G. The said point is very crucial. It was necessary for the appellants to produce satisfactory evidence in that regard and they having failed to do so, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 6. The fact that during the relevant period in terms of provisions of law comprised under Rule 57G and 57H, the assessee were required to submit a declaration under Rule 57G in relation to the inputs received and that Rule 57H required permission for availing and utilization of the credit on the inputs received prior to submission of such declaration under Rule 57G are not and cannot be in dispute. It is also undisputed fact that the appellants submitted their declaration under 57G and the same was received by the department on 8th May 1991/4th June 1991. It is also a matter of record that the appellants filed application dated 24/29th October 1992under Rule 57H seeking permission to avail the credit to the tune of Rs. 60, 90,338.37 paise. Further, undisputedly, the said application was rejected under order dated 17.05.2000. However, while passing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion were received by the appellants before filing of the declaration under Rule 57G. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants were in any manner aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2000. Rather the said order clarified the doubt in their mind about non-applicability of the provision of Rule 57H and that is apparent from letter dated 09.07.2001 by the learned Advocate for the appellants addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Chittorgarh on behalf of the appellants. It was clearly stated therein that the order dated 17.05.2000 only disallowed the credit under Rule 57H but did not actually relate to the admissibility of the credit to the appellants as such. In other words, the appellants insisted for their right to avail the credit earned on the inputs received by them after filing their declaration under Rule 57G. Indeed, we have not been pointed out any provision of law which can justify denial of the credit on the said inputs to the appellants. Apart from the order dated 17.05.2000, there is nothing on record which deals with the availability of the credit in relation to the inputs in question and as already stated abo....