RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order -in -Appeal dated 11/15 -7 -2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order -in -Original dated 17 -11 -99 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit on the capital goods in question, to the appellants.

(2.) The appellants had been disallowed the Modvat credit on the capital goods on the ground of having failed to file proper declaration under Rule 57T of the Rules. They had been disallowed the Modvat credit of various amounts as detailed in the Order -in -original and appeal memos of the above captioned appeals. Penalty had also been imposed on them, as detailed therein.

(3.) So far as the receipt of the capital goods and their installation in the factory premises of the appellants is concerned, the same remains undisputed. It also remain undisputed that the goods in respect of which the Modvat credit had been claimed fall within the definition of 'capital goods' in terms of Rule 57Q of the Rules. The only ground on which the Modvat credit had been disallowed by the authorities below is that the declarations filed by them were not proper in the sense that the names of the machine were only disclosed therein and not of their parts specifically. In my view, this ground is not at all tangible in view of the amendment to Rules 57G and 57T of the Rules, vide Notification No. 7/99 -CE. (N.T.), dated 9 -2 -99. By amendment in this rule, it has been made clear that the credit under Sub -rule 2 of Rule 57G shall not be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under Sub -rule (1) did not contain all the details required to be contained therein or the manufacturer failed to comply with any other requirement of Sub -rule (1). The Board has also issued two Circulars Nos. 267/6/92 -CX., dated 30 -1 -1992 and 441/7/99 -CX., dated 23 -2 -1999 in this regard. Both the authorities below have ignored the amended provision of the above referred rule and two Board circulars, detailed above. They have been disallowed Modvat credit on the ground that specific names of the parts of the machines which were specified in the declaration, had not been disclosed by the appellants. In the declaration, the appellants categorically declared the machine and its parts. The description given of the machines along with parts by the appellants in the declaration, was enough to satisfy the requirement of the provisions of Rule 57T, and as such, those declarations could not be held to be improper. The Modvat credit could not be disallowed to the appellants of the disputed amount in the light of the admitted facts, referred to above read with amended provisions of Rules 57G and 57T and two Board's circulars, detailed above. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in all these appeals, disallowing the Modvat credit of the disputed amounts to the appellants, cannot be sustained and is set aside.