2002 (3) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by which he has held that assessees have filed the declarations within the stipulated period under Rule 57T from the date of commencing of their production and that they have rightly taken Modvat credit in respect of capital goods. The findings recorded by him in Para 5 is noted herein below :- "5. Under Rule 57T(1) every manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on the capital goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise law particularly since we are not dealing with a case of suppression or clandestine removal of excisable goods. From the copies of the records submitted by the appellants, it is seen that the factory was registered under Central Excise law and the Registration Certificate No. 6/99 under Rule 174 was issued on 6-4-99 only. There are a number of decisions that the assessee is bound to fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r condonation of delay, if any, and the same was rejected by AC on 14-5-99. On filing the declaration, they took credit on capital goods. Therefore, show cause notice dated 5-8-99 was issued proposing to disallow the credit as well as to impose penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner had dropped penalty proceedings, however confirmed the demands in the SCN as assessee had taken Modvat credit after the ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 (48) RLT 117 which also holds that delay in filing the declaration even after the expiry of three months is condonable and credit is admissible. He submits that this ruling has been rendered in the light of earlier rulings of the Larger Bench rendered in the case of Kamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (T-LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 575. He submits that the issue is....