Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1989 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (5) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Reversal of Modvat credit on certain inputs irregularly availed by the appellant. 2. Compliance with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding declaration of inputs for availing MODVAT credit. 3. Interpretation of declarations filed by the appellant for gears, gear boxes, and dynodrive. 4. Legality of availing MODVAT credit on specific inputs. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Collector's order reversing Modvat credit of Rs. 2,54,629.97 due to irregular availing by the appellant. The officers found discrepancies during a visit to the appellant's factory, leading to a Show Cause Notice for recovery of MODVAT credit on inputs like gear wheel, gear boxes, and dynodrives motors. The Collector's decision was based on the appellant's failure to declare these inputs under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The appellant contended that they had complied with the declaration requirements for gears, gear boxes, and dynodrive. The initial and subsequent declarations detailed these inputs broadly, with specific mention of gear-related items like couplings, pulleys, and electric motors. The appellant argued that their declarations adequately covered these inputs, including gear wheels and gear boxes, despite a later amendment specifying these items explicitly. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the declarations made by the appellant regarding gears, gear boxes, and dynodrive. It found that the appellant's initial declaration provided a broad description of inputs, including gear-related items under sub-heading 8483.00 and electric motors under sub-heading 8501.00. The subsequent amendment further elaborated on these inputs, specifically mentioning gear wheels, gear boxes, and dynodrive. The Tribunal considered technical descriptions, supplier orders, and gate pass details to determine the accuracy of the appellant's declarations. 4. Regarding gear wheels and gear boxes, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's declarations adequately covered these inputs, even before opting for the MODVAT Scheme. The order to reverse credit on these items was deemed unsustainable and set aside. However, concerning dynodrive, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision as the specific description of this input was included in a later amendment, not in the initial declaration. The order to reverse credit on dynodrive was deemed valid, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|