Full Judgment
2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed the necessary declaration under Rule 57T of the Rules for availing the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods. He submits that he received the goods, in question, in February and March, 1996 and intimation was sent to the revenue authorities in this respect. The machine was installed in the factory on 30.06.1996 and the appellants, through post, intimated the revenue authorities regarding installation of the machine on 01.07.1996. He submits that, thereafter on 18-10-1996, the appellants against informed the revenue authorities in respect of installation of the machines, in question. He submits that show cause notice was issued to the appellants only on the ground that the appellants submitted the intimation in respect of installation of machine late. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lalji Board Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 674 and in the case of Paharpur 3P v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 107 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
3. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the machine, in question, was installed on 30.06.1996 and intimation was received by the revenue on 18-10-1996. He submits that the plea of the appellants that the intimation was sent through post on 01.07.1996, was not believed by the lower authorities on the ground that the date of postal stamp was not clear. He, therefore, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. In this case the revenue is denying the benefit of Modvat credit only on the ground that intimation in respect of installation of machine, in question, was given late. The contention of the appellants is that the machine was installed on 30.06.1996 and the intimation was given to the revenue authorities on 01.07.1996 by post. Ld. Counsel also produced the original receipt to show that the letter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on 01.07.1996 from Partapur, Meerut. The contention of the appellants is also that the Tribunal in the case of Lalji Board Industries and in the case of Paharpur 3P (supra) held that the delay in giving intimation in respect of installation of capital goods, cannot be the ground for denial of credit when there was substantial compliance with essential requirement of law. In the present case the machines were installed on 30.06.1996 and the credit was taken on 01.07.1996, which was utilised in October, 1997. The lower authorities disbelieved the contention of the appellants that intimation was sent through post on 01.07.1996 on the ground that the date on the postal stamp was not clear. Even if this evidence is not to be considered, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lalji Board Industries (supra) relied upon by the appellants, whereby it was held that the delay in intimating the revenue for installation of the machines, cannot be the ground for denial of Modvat credit, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of credit.
6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.