Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chetna Industries

Collector of Central Excise vs Chetna Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 29, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7993

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/7993
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Nov 29, 1994
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Chetna Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (1995)(77)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....we condone the delay and took up the ref. application for disposal. "whether the declaration filed by the respondents with the range supdt. could be treated as a valid declaration for purposes of availing modvat credit under rule 57g of central excises rules, 1944".3. after hearing both the sides, we find that the facts discussed in para 6 of this bench order are not disputed. in this case, since the original mod vat declaration, which filed by the respondents was not in proper format, giving correct classification, the respondents were directed by the asstt collector to have discussion with the supdt. to finalise the declaration. thereafter, the revised declaration, after suitable modification was given to the supdt. this bench took note of the earlier trade notice issued by the department allowing the supdt.to accept the declaration and in the aforesaid context of the factual position, allowed the appeal of the respondents by extending the modvat credit in respect of the inputs covered by the declaration filed with the supdt. the department has raised the aforesaid question alleged to be a point of law. however, we do not agree with the contentions raised before us because of the fact that filing a declaration with the asstt.collector is, no doubt, a statutory requirement. such a declaration was originally filed with the asstt. collector which was found to be defective. thereafter, the respondents were asked to have discussion with the supdt. and the revised declaration was filed with supdt. in the circumstances, such a declaration was deemed to have been filed with the asstt. collector. since this is a factual appreciation of the position, denial of modvat credit only on this ground, amounts to denial of substantive benefit. we feel that the reference is not called for, since it is a purely appreciation of the factual position as discussed above. we, therefore, dismiss the reference application.

Full Judgment

1. There is a delay of 11 days in filing the reference application by the Revenue in respect of this Bench order No. 1000-02/WRB, dated 6-7-1992. After hearing both the sides, we condone the delay and took up the Ref. application for disposal.

"Whether the declaration filed by the respondents with the Range Supdt. could be treated as a valid declaration for purposes of availing MODVAT Credit under Rule 57G of Central Excises Rules, 1944".

3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the facts discussed in para 6 of this Bench order are not disputed. In this case, since the original mod vat declaration, which filed by the respondents was not in proper format, giving correct classification, the respondents were directed by the Asstt Collector to have discussion with the Supdt. to finalise the declaration. Thereafter, the revised declaration, after suitable modification was given to the Supdt. This Bench took note of the earlier Trade Notice issued by the Department allowing the Supdt.

to accept the declaration and in the aforesaid context of the factual position, allowed the appeal of the respondents by extending the modvat credit in respect of the inputs covered by the declaration filed with the Supdt. The Department has raised the aforesaid question alleged to be a point of law. However, we do not agree with the contentions raised before us because of the fact that filing a declaration with the Asstt.

Collector is, no doubt, a statutory requirement. Such a declaration was originally filed with the Asstt. Collector which was found to be defective. Thereafter, the respondents were asked to have discussion with the Supdt. and the revised declaration was filed with Supdt. In the circumstances, such a declaration was deemed to have been filed with the Asstt. Collector. Since this is a factual appreciation of the position, denial of modvat credit only on this ground, amounts to denial of substantive benefit. We feel that the reference is not called for, since it is a purely appreciation of the factual position as discussed above. We, therefore, dismiss the reference application.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Chetna Industries Same Subject Excise