9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Description of goods in declaration for Modvat credit, interpretation of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, discrepancy in goods description, applicability of Tariff sub-heading, waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
In this judgment by Shri G.R. Sharma, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, considered a Stay Application related to the description of goods in a declaration for Modvat credit. The appellant's consultant argued that the goods were properly described as wires of iron and non-alloy steel, falling under a specific Tariff sub-heading. He contended that minor discrepancies in description should not bar Modvat credit. The consultant also highlighted that both coated and uncoated wires fell under the same Tariff sub-heading, supporting the appellant's case. Additionally, he emphasized that the department had accepted the description of coated wires previously. The consultant requested the waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on precedents. On the other hand, the respondent's JCDR opposed the grant of stay, arguing that the description provided was incomplete and not specific enough as per Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. He cited a previous case to support the argument that a broad description should not be accepted for Modvat credit. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed whether the description in the declaration was specific enough for Rule 57G compliance. The Tribunal noted a discrepancy between the description in the declaration and the gate passes regarding the coating of the wires. However, since both coated and uncoated wires fell under the same Tariff sub-heading and the department had previously accepted coated wire descriptions, the Tribunal found the case prima facie in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and stayed any recovery proceedings pending the appeal, scheduling the case for regular hearing.
|
