Judgment
1. The issue relates to Modvat credit. The modvat credit has been denied on the ground that declaration was filed subsequent to the date of receipt of the capital goods and further it was delayed for more than three months. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant have received the goods on 28.11.94, 5.12.94, 16.12.94 and 13.1.95 respectively whereas the declaration was filed on 3.7.95. She submits that there was no delay in filing the declaration because of the fact that the factory got registered on 6.6.95 and the declaration was duly filed on 3.7.95. In support of her contention, she referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Seven Hills Papers (P_ Ltd., Vs CCE, Guntur reported in 1997 (95) ELT 522 (T) wherein it was held that Assistant Collector is empowered to condone the delay of maximum of three months. It was also submitted by the Counsel that the party has availed Modvat credit subsequent to the filing of declaration.3. On going through the submissions with reference to the respective impugned order, I do not find any findings with reference to the date of registration of the factory as submitted by the Counsel. This factual position has not been looked in to by the authorities below while disallowing the credit. Further more it is not clear at what point of time the credit was taken by the party. In view of this factual discrepancy, the matter requires to be re-examined. In the view I have taken, I am remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate Order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity the appellant.
Appellant may make use of this opportunity to substantiate their claim.
Thus, this appeal is disposed of tin the above terms.