2016 (2) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent : CSC, Dr A K Nigam, K C Sinha, R C Shukla ORDER We have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the Department. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in denying the Modvat credit to the appellants which was due to them in all respe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise Rules. The declaration form was filed previously on 27.7.1994 along with an application for condonation of delay. Instead of allowing Modvat credit as per Rule 57G(9) & (10), a show cause notice dated 21.12.1994 was issued to show cause why the Modvat credit availed by the appellant should not be rejected and penalty should not be imposed. The appellant submitted a reply and thereafter the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng of such declarations and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the inputs. (10) The Assistant Commissioner shall not condone the delay unless he is satisfied that: (i) the inputs were received in the factory not before a period of six months from the date of filing of such declaration; (ii) the amount of duty for which credit is sought has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... take credit. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents and, therefore, in our opinion sufficient reasons had been given by the appellant for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the declaration form. Once sufficient reasons have been given, the competent authority was required to give Modvat credit in terms of subrule (9) of Rule 57G. The show cause notice itself indicates that t....