2006 (2) TMI 589 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on certain chemical inputs due to lack of specific description in the declaration.
2. Allowance of higher notional credit on special excise duty under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Dispute regarding the denial of credit based on the specificity of the declaration of goods.
4. Application of Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and CBEC Circular No. 441/7/99-CX.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit on certain chemical inputs
The dispute arose from the denial of Modvat credit on chemical inputs due to a lack of specific description in the declaration. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing the importance of specific descriptions as per Rule 57G. The Commissioner held that a general description like "Organic Salts" was too broad and not acceptable. However, the appellant argued that specific declarations for each item were not feasible due to purchasing chemicals with brand names. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, stating that if the Revenue authorities accepted the general description in the declaration without objection, it cannot be rejected later when granting credit.

Issue 2: Allowance of higher notional credit on special excise duty
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that higher notional credit on special excise duty under Rule 57B was taken, which was deemed inadmissible based on a previous judgment. The appellant contested this, stating that the show cause notice did not raise such an objection. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of basis for this finding, highlighting a discrepancy in the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 3: Dispute over denial of credit based on specificity of declaration
The appellant's contention that denial of credit based on non-specific declarations was unjust was supported by the Tribunal's reference to a previous case where credit could not be denied even in the absence of a declaration. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-specificity of the declaration should not be grounds for denial, especially when duty payment on the inputs was not in question.

Issue 4: Application of Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and CBEC Circular No. 441/7/99-CX
The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and CBEC Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, which stated that credit should not be denied for procedural violations unless there was no duty payment on the input. Since there was no dispute regarding duty payment on the inputs in this case, the denial of credit was deemed contrary to the notification and circular. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's appeal as frivolous and lacking merit, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.