TELCO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned orders the Commissioner has adjudicated 15 show cause notices issued to the appellants during the period 26 -5 -94 to 4 -7 -94 and has disallowed the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 3,46,42,892.61 and has also imposed personal penalties upon the appellants.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts on record are that the appellant filed a Modvat declaration on 9 -3 -94 in respect of inputs falling under chapter 27. The said declaration filed under Rule 57G was acknowledged by the Asstt. Commissioner. However, the Asstt. Commissioner felt that the declaration was not in proper form because the same did not indicate as to which inputs were intended to be used in which of the final products, the same was returned by the Asstt. Commissioner vide his letter dated 11 -3 -94. The appellant re -submitted the declaration final product -wise on 11 -3 -94 which was also acknowledged by the authorities of the Asstt. Commissioner. On 16 -3 -94 Asstt. Commissioner required some further information and gave directions to the appellants as regards the procedure to be followed. Vide their letter dated 29 -3 -94 appellant submitted the nature and manner of use of different inputs falling under chapter 27 as required by the Asstt. Commissioner. On 12 -5 -94 high speed diesel was de -listed by the appellant from their Modvatable inputs and it was also clarified by them that they did not avail any Modvat credit on the said product in their factory since 1 -3 -94. On 17 -5 -94 Superintendent wrote to the appellant that declaration dated 29 -3 -94 related to Chapter 27 is not acknowledged since you have not complied with this authorities letter dated l6 -3 -94.

(3.) THE Commissioner in his impugned order has held that as all the declarations filed by the appellant were not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 57G, the filing of declaration cannot constitute compliance with the said provision. As such he has concluded that there was no declaration in the eyes of law and the credit availed by the appellant is required to be rejected.