Full Judgment
2. It is observed from the records that Notice of Hearing was issued by the Registry on 16-2-1994. But no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
3. Ld. DR stated that in this case, the Respondents availed of money credit benefit without filing the proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 57(O)2. This rule requires the manufacturer to file a declaration with the Assist. Collector indicating the description of the final product and the input and such other information as may be required and the benefit can be availed of in terms of 57(O)2 only after obtaining the acknowledgement of the receipt of declaration filed under 57(O)1.
Yet the Collector (Appeals) allowed their appeal merely on the ground that the benefit had been claimed on classification list.
4. It is their submission that the purpose of filing classification list under Rule 173B is different and its approval is only for classification and rate of duty purposes. Since the prescribed procedure has been violated, Assistant Collector was justified in denying the benefit.Tata Oil v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 279 (Tri.) in support of his contentions.
6. We observe that the learned DR is correct that Rule 57(O) prescribes the procedure to be observed by the manufacturers for availing the benefit of money credit claim and therefore, in the normal course, the assessee was required to follow the same. However, at the same time we note that the Collector (Appeals) has observed inter alia that :-- * * * * * * We therefore, consider that once the Assistant Collector had himself accepted the request subject to verification by the Superintendent, the credit taken subsequently could not be denied merely on the ground of non-observance of Rule 57(O) 'Sensuo Stricto'. It was open to the Assistant Collector to direct the assessee to file a separate declaration if the contents of the claim or declaration made on classification list were not sufficient for the proper officer to arrive at a correct decision. In fact, Rule 57(O), explicitly allows the Assistant Collector to call for such information as may be required, but the Assistant Collector chose not to do so. Instead he preferred to take the precaution of asking the Superintendent to verify the facts before approval (and wisely so). Learned DR has not been able to show even at this stage as to whether the Superintendent had reported any fact which would disentitle the respondents from the benefit of the claim. No copy of the classification list has been filed before us. Learned DR has also not able to show that the facts of Tata Oil case were similar.
7. In such circumstances, the Department's contention that the respondents were disentitled remains unsubstantiated on the facts.
Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). In view of the above position, we uphold the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the Department's appeal.
Before parting, we make it clear that this order is in the specific circumstances of this case and there is no doubt that in the normal course the provisions of 57(O) is required to be followed.