Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 27, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/15082

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/15082
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jan 27, 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(113)ELT527Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....bombay made in order-in-appeal no.pcj-556/bom. iii/94, dated 10th october, 1994 whereunder he held that the assessee had informed availing of modvat credit and even though he filed declaration afterwards. the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of rubber articles and availed modvat credit amounting to rs. 11,100/- without filing of declaration as required under rule 57g of the central excise rules. the collector in the appellate order has held that the assessee had informed the 19-1-1988 which was before taking the credit. the action on the assessee's part that they did not file declaration in a proper form would not itself entitle to claim the credit. hence the appeal by the department.2. i have heard the ld. jdr. respondent is not present in spite of issue of notice.3. in the grounds of appeal it is stated by the department that the letter dated 19-1-1988 referred to by the collector (appeals) only intimated about the crossing of the exemption limit and it only mentions the assessee's intention of taking modvat credit in future. it could not mean, he argues that he intimated about filing of declarations which is a legal requirement. he did not ask for any exemption from filing the same. it is further argued by the ld. jdr that in the said letter it does not say anything about rule 57g(1) which mentions of the finished products as well as the inputs.therefore, he argues that the entire order passed by the collector (appeals) is wrong in law.4. i have considered the submissions made by the ld. jdr and perused the records. rule 57g(1) is a salutory provision making filing of the declaration as a mandatory requirement. it is not an empty formality. i am of the view that the door step for entering into the arena of the modvat regime is filing of the declaration under rule 57g(1). if a person fails to do so he could not avail of the benefit of the provision of modvat. i am fortified in this view by the judgment of the single member rendered in the case of.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay made in Order-in-Appeal No.PCJ-556/Bom. III/94, dated 10th October, 1994 whereunder he held that the assessee had informed availing of Modvat credit and even though he filed declaration afterwards. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of rubber articles and availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 11,100/- without filing of declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector in the appellate order has held that the assessee had informed the 19-1-1988 which was before taking the credit. The action on the assessee's part that they did not file declaration in a proper form would not itself entitle to claim the credit. Hence the appeal by the Department.

2. I have heard the ld. JDR. Respondent is not present in spite of issue of notice.

3. In the grounds of appeal it is stated by the Department that the letter dated 19-1-1988 referred to by the Collector (Appeals) only intimated about the crossing of the exemption limit and it only mentions the assessee's intention of taking Modvat credit in future. It could not mean, he argues that he intimated about filing of declarations which is a legal requirement. He did not ask for any exemption from filing the same. It is further argued by the ld. JDR that in the said letter it does not say anything about Rule 57G(1) which mentions of the finished products as well as the inputs.

Therefore, he argues that the entire order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in law.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR and perused the records. Rule 57G(1) is a Salutory provision making filing of the declaration as a mandatory requirement. It is not an empty formality. I am of the view that the door step for entering into the arena of the Modvat regime is filing of the declaration under Rule 57G(1). If a person fails to do so he could not avail of the benefit of the provision of Modvat. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Single Member rendered in the case of P.G. Conductors v. C.C.E. 1996 (81) E.L.T. 336.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works Same Subject Excise