Synthetics and Chemicals Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. shri s.l. sethi, learned advocate appearing for the applicants prays for dispensation of predeposit of duty of rs. 4,76,653.26 and the penalty of rs. 2.20 lakhs. the learned counsel submits that the major issue for decision in this appeal is whether the delay of one or three days in taking modvat credit before filing the declaration is condonable and whether the items on which modvat credit has been taken are capital goods for the purpose of rule 57t(2). he submits that in so far as condonation of delay is concerned the central board of excise and customs in their circular no. 181/15/96-cx., dated 7-3-1996 clarified that the matter has been examined by the board and it is clarified that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that declaration has not been filed by the manufacturer before taking credit of duty. the learned counsel submits that all the consignments of capital goods in dispute were received between 24-1-1995 and 13-3-1995 whereas the modvat credit of duty was taken after 31-3-1995.he submits that it would thus be seen that declaration in respect of these goods was filed between 25-1-1995 and 14-3-1995. he therefore submits that in so far as taking of modvat credit is concerned the same is fully covered by the decision contained in the clarificatory circular of the central board of excise and customs referred to above.2. on the question of goods being capital goods or otherwise the learned counsel submits that the applicants filed chartered engineer's certificate giving clear description, brand name etc. of the articles and that from the certificate it would be clear that the goods are either accessories, spares or components parts of capital goods and therefore they are fully covered by the provision of rule 57t(2). the learned counsel submits that in view of the above submissions, their case is fully covered by the circular of the board as also by the expert opinion given by the chartered engineer. he, therefore prays that the pre-deposit of duty and the penalty may be dispensed with.3. shri satnam singh, learned sdr appearing for the department submits that the collector (appeals) in his order had held that the complete description of certain items claimed as capital goods was not given. he submits that rule 57t(2) requires complete description of the goods, their brand name and identifying particulars should be furnished. he submits that this requirement has not been complied with. the learned sdr therefore prays that the stay petition may be rejected.4. heard the submissions of both sides. in so far as furnishing of declaration and taking of modvat credit is concerned we find that the issue is fully covered by the circular of the central board of excise and customs in favour of the applicants. in so far as description of the goods, their trade mark, if any, or identifying particulars are concerned we find prima facie that these particulars are furnished in the certificate given by the chartered engineer.5. having regard to the above facts we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty. stay petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Judgment:
1. Shri S.L. Sethi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants prays for dispensation of predeposit of duty of Rs. 4,76,653.26 and the penalty of Rs. 2.20 lakhs. The learned Counsel submits that the major issue for decision in this appeal is whether the delay of one or three days in taking Modvat credit before filing the declaration is condonable and whether the items on which Modvat credit has been taken are capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57T(2). He submits that in so far as condonation of delay is concerned the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Circular No. 181/15/96-CX., dated 7-3-1996 clarified that the matter has been examined by the Board and it is clarified that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that declaration has not been filed by the manufacturer before taking credit of duty. The learned Counsel submits that all the consignments of capital goods in dispute were received between 24-1-1995 and 13-3-1995 whereas the Modvat credit of duty was taken after 31-3-1995.

He submits that it would thus be seen that declaration in respect of these goods was filed between 25-1-1995 and 14-3-1995. He therefore submits that in so far as taking of Modvat credit is concerned the same is fully covered by the decision contained in the clarificatory circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs referred to above.

2. On the question of goods being capital goods or otherwise the learned Counsel submits that the applicants filed Chartered Engineer's certificate giving clear description, brand name etc. of the articles and that from the certificate it would be clear that the goods are either accessories, spares or components parts of capital goods and therefore they are fully covered by the provision of Rule 57T(2). The learned Counsel submits that in view of the above submissions, their case is fully covered by the circular of the Board as also by the expert opinion given by the Chartered Engineer. He, therefore prays that the pre-deposit of duty and the penalty may be dispensed with.

3. Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR appearing for the department submits that the Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that the complete description of certain items claimed as capital goods was not given. He submits that Rule 57T(2) requires complete description of the goods, their brand name and identifying particulars should be furnished. He submits that this requirement has not been complied with. The learned SDR therefore prays that the stay petition may be rejected.

4. Heard the submissions of both sides. In so far as furnishing of declaration and taking of Modvat credit is concerned we find that the issue is fully covered by the circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in favour of the applicants. In so far as description of the goods, their trade mark, if any, or identifying particulars are concerned we find prima facie that these particulars are furnished in the certificate given by the Chartered Engineer.

5. Having regard to the above facts we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Stay petition is disposed of in the above terms.