1996(01)LCX0065
IN THE CEGAT, NORTH REGIONAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR
Versus
RATAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Order No. A/211/96-NB, dated 19-1-1996 in E/Appeal No. 121/93-NB
CASE CITED
Collector v. Ramakrishna Steel Industries — 1990(12)LCX0058 Eq 1991 (056) ELT 0456 (Tribunal) [Para 2]
Advocated By : Shri R.A. Sheikh, JDR, for the Appellant.
None, for the Respondents.
[Order]. - This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur against the order, dated 8-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The respondents, herein, are the manufacturers of non-alloy steel ingot falling under sub-heading 7206.90 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing of the Modvat Credit facility under Notification 177/86, dated 1-3-1986. They filed a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules for the purpose. The case of the department is that the respondents have given in their declaration one of the inputs described as steel M.S. cutting under Tariff Heading 72.07. This heading covers semi-finished steel. The department found that the duty-paying documents under cover of which the inputs have been received, described the inputs as H.R. Steel Corner cutting scrap which have been subjected to duty under Heading 72.04. Since the declaration was not covering the inputs and the Tariff heading, the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Agra, by his order dated 26-8-1991 denied Modvat and confirmed the demand for duty of the input H.R. Steel Corner Cutting Scrap. The Collector (Appeals), however, set aside the Assistant Collector’s order, who held that the defects in their Modvat declaration were of remediable nature.
2. Shri R.A. Sheikh, ld. D.R. for the appellant Collector, submitted that the declaration filed by the respondents, herein, does not cover the actual inputs received by them by description and also by tariff heading under which they are classified. He reiterated the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the Assistant Collector’s order be restored and the respondents should be directed to reverse the credit amounting to Rs. 25,754.40 involved in this appeal. The respondents have been informed telegraphically on 9-1-1996, but none is present. On examination of the record and considering the submissions made, the Collector (Appeals) has held in favour of the respondents on the ground that the declaration filed by the respondents although does not precisely cover the input by description or by classification under tariff heading, yet the Collector (Appeals) has followed certain decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Ramakrishna Steel Industries reported in 1991 (056) ELT 456 to say that so long as the description and the sub-heading for the inputs as well as the final produce is there, the benefit of Modvat Credit can be allowed if it is shown that the inputs received have been used in the manufacture of the final product. The department has contended that the Tribunal decision has been given in the light of certain instructions of the CBEC which covered only the cases prior to February, 1988, but the present case, it is urged, is subsequent to that between the period June 1990 to October, 1990. However, it is seen that besides the Tribunal decision, the Collector (Appeals) has referred to subsequent clarificatory instructions by the Board also. Reference has been made in Boards’s Circular No. 9/91-CX-8, dated 18-2-1991 appearing at 1991 (034) ECR 46-C wherein, it has been clarified that so long as the product and its classification in the relevant chapter is correct, Modvat Credit should not be disallowed merely on the ground that there is difference in the Nomenclature of the product due to difference in trade practice. Another department trade notice cited by the Collector (Appeals) is also subsequent to February, 1988. This is a Trade Notice No. 161/88, dated 28-9-1988 as in 1988 (019) ECR 7/C to the that (sic) Modvat Credit is not to be denied because of minor variation in the classification of the inputs in the declaration filed by the assessee. Therefore, the conclusion of the Collector (Appeals) in this case that since the classification of the inputs under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as well as the broad description thereof are sufficient to extend the benefit of Modvat to the respondents, has a lot [of] force being based on the ratio of the Tribunal decision on the same lines, and further having regard to the undisputed fact that the input received is duty-paid and it is also used in the manufacture of the declared final product of the respondents. In such a view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and the appeal is rejected.
_______
Equivalent 1996 (83) ELT 573 (Tribunal)