AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lower authorities have confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 57,225/ - by disallowing credit of the above amount on the ground that the assessees had not filed the relevant declaration under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules in the office of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. A penalty of Rs. 4,000/ - has also been imposed upon the appellants.

(2.) I have heard Shri Rajesh Chhiber, learned Advocate and Shri A.K. Jain, learned DR. There is no dispute that 57H declaration was filed before the Superintendent of Central Excise. In other words, the requisite declaration was filed with the Department. I agree with the learned Counsel that non -filing of the declaration before the authority prescribed under the Rule is only a procedural lapse and that credit cannot be denied for this reason particularly when the Superintendent was in a position to forward the declaration to the Assistant Commissioner and also in view of the fact that the objective of filing of the declaration namely enabling the Department to verify the raw material stock position could also be achieved. I also find that in the case of Sai Electricals, the Tribunal has held that filing of 57 -H declaration before a Central Excise officer other than the Assistant Commissioner was not a ground to deny credit and the Revenue's application for reference against the said order, was rejected as seen from [2000 (115) E.L.T. 627]. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.