Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sood Steel India (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the availment of the Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on the inputs old ship breakings before filing the prescribed declaration. The appellants had availed of the Modvat credit of Rs. 20,662/- vide RG 23A, Part-II, Entry No. 159, dated 31-7-1995. They had not declared the ship breaking material as one of their inputs in the Modvat declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 5-8-1995, they filed a declaration in respect of the credit already availed on 31-7-1995. This declaration was received in the office of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise on 14-8-1995. The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay on 22-1-1996.
The delay was not condoned and the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shim-la, confirmed the demand of Rs. 20,662/-. The view taken by the Asstt. Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.
2. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, stated that the appellants had received the ship breaking scrap for the first time and had applied for condonation of delay in filing the declaration. He referred to the provisions of Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and submitted that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise was competent to condone the delay.
3. Shri O.K. Nayyar, JDR, replied that the appellants had already availed of the credit and the notice was issued for recovery of the credit already utilised. The delay could be condoned if the credit had not been taken. In this case, the credit had already been taken and utilised and, therefore, the recovery of the credit had correctly been ordered by the adjudicating authority.
4. I have carefully considered the matter. I find that the credit of Rs. 20,662 /- had been availed of on 31-7-1995 while the declaration with regard to the inputs, ship breaking material, had been filed on 5-8-1995 which was received by the proper officer on 14-8-1995. In the declaration, there was no reference that the inputs, old ship breakings, had already been received.
5. Under Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where a manufacturer was not in a position to make a declaration under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57G and makes the declaration subsequently, the Asstt.
Collector may for reasons to be recorded in writing condone the delay in filing of such declaration and allow the manufacturer to take credit of the duty already paid on the inputs even though the procedural requirements laid down under the said Rule 57G, had not been complied with. This condonation of the delay was subject to the conditions that the Asstt. Collector was satisfied that the inputs in respect of which credit was to be allowed were received in the factory not before a period of six months from the date of filing of such declaration and that the inputs had actually been utilised or were to be used in the manufacture of final product. I find that in this case the credit had already been availed of on 31-7-1995, while the declaration had been filed subsequently on 5-8-1995. Even at that stage, no application for condonation of delay in filing the declaration was made and the application for condonation was made only on 22-1-1996.
6. In the show cause notice, it had been alleged that why the amount of Rs. 20,662 /- should not be recovered under Rule 57-I(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is seen from that notice that the appellants had already utilised the credit as the allegation is with regard to the recovery of the duty under Rule 57-I(ii). In view of the above, the provisions of Rule 57G(5) are not applicable and I consider that the credit had been rightly denied.
7. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.