HIND LAMPS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER

(2.) IN this case, the modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground of failure to file complete declaration under Rule 56T(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and availed credit on capital goods before installation. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that declaration filed under erstwhile Rule 57T(1) was not specific whether it was machinery or parts and accessories., and therefore, the appellants failed to follow the procedure laid down under erstwhile Rule 57T(1) and the declaration should be specific and based on clear understanding.

(3.) THE learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that they have filed declaration under Rule 57T(1) which is general in nature. He further submits that the appellants filed declaration under Rule 57T(2) after receipt of the capital goods which is specific. He submits that in view of the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Khamkhya Steel Ltd. v. CCE (2000) 40 RLT 575 and in view of Sub -rule 13 of Rule 57T of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the declaration filed by the appellants should be accepted. He; also relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Grasim Industries Ltd. . He also submits that the tribunal in a series of decisions held that cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground of availment of cenvat credit before filing of declaration. In this connection, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Vishnu Sugar Mils 2001 (138) ELT 316.