Advocated By : Shri B.N. Kedia, General Manager (Law), for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order]. - After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides. It is seen that the Modvat credit has been denied in respect of Dissolver Equipped with Turbo Mixer Inner and Outer Jacket, on the ground that instead of eight pieces as shown in the invoices, two pieces have been entered in the RG-23C Part-I. It has been explained to me by the representative of the appellant-company that the goods were in total two numbers consisting of eight pieces. As such, instead of writing two numbers and eight pieces, two pieces were written in the Modvat records by mistake. Similarly, another small quantum of Modvat credit has been denied in respect of Chain Clip on the ground that instead of 20 pieces as reflected in the invoice, only two pieces have been shown in the records. This again has been attributed to the mistake on the part of the clerk maintaining register. It has been contended before me that all the goods in question were received by them and were installed in their factory. There is no dispute from the Revenue side on this ground. The appellants are ready to rectify the entries in their RG-23C Part-I. In view of the appellants’ offer to rectify the mistake made in RG-23C Part-I, and in view of uncontroverted position that the appellants have received the Capital Goods in their factory and installed the same, I see no reason to deny the Modvat credit to them. Accordingly, the said portion of the impugned Order is set aside.

2. Other amounts of Rs. 2,699.00 and Rs. 96.00 have been disallowed on the ground that the Coils received by the appellants have been classified by their manufacturers in the invoice as under 8536.00 and 8538.00, whereas the appellants have declared the classification of the said Coils in their declaration under 8536.00. Such minor variations in the classification of the Coils, when there is no dispute about the receipt of the goods in the appellants’ factory and when the Chapter Heading is the same, cannot be made the justifiable grounds for denying the Modvat credit. Accordingly, I allow the same. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.