2008 (3) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant, receiver of the inputs - denial of Deemed Credit on waste & scrap on ground that the appellant actually received Malleable Scrap of Steel instead of M.S. Flat & M.S. Square as declared in invoice - misdeclaration by supplier since no proceeding was initiated against the manufacturer, of inputs regarding misdeclaration of goods, appellant cannot be denied for credit - change of classification of the goods at the buyer s end is not permissible

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Deemed Credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. dated 30-8-97, imposition of penalty on the supplier, eligibility of Deemed Credit for the appellant, change of goods classification at buyer's end, misdeclaration of goods in the invoice, applicability of Notification No. 49/97-C.E. dated 1-8-1997 on exempted goods, classification of inputs, sustainability of allegations against the recipient of inputs, acceptance of adjudication order by Revenue against the supplier, permissibility of classification of inputs at buyer's end.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of Deemed Credit during a specific period under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. The show cause notice proposed to deny the Deemed Credit based on the allegation that the appellant received different goods than declared in the invoice. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled against the appellant, denying Deemed Credit and imposing penalties. The appellant argued that changing the classification of goods at the buyer's end is impermissible, citing relevant legal precedents.

The Revenue reiterated its stance that the appellant received exempted goods and was not eligible for Deemed Credit on waste and scrap. Upon reviewing the records and arguments from both sides, the Member found that the show cause notice aimed to disallow Deemed Credit due to misdeclaration of invoice particulars by the supplier. The Notification in question allowed Deemed Credit based on the declared price by the manufacturer, with specific provisions for incorrect declarations. The Member noted that the Revenue did not challenge the manufacturer's classification of inputs, indicating acceptance of the adjudication order against the supplier.

Relying on legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decision that classification changes at the buyer's end are impermissible, the Member concluded that the appellant's classification was not sustainable. As the Revenue did not appeal against the manufacturer of the inputs, the classification at the buyer's end was deemed impermissible. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of correct declaration of goods and the impermissibility of changing classifications at the buyer's end, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal principles and precedents.