9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Alleged mis-statement and suppression of facts in declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Classification and description of final products for availing Modvat credit. 3. Denial of Modvat credit and demand confirmation based on alleged mis-statement. 4. Interpretation of Tariff classification and composition of Electrical Resistance Wires. 5. Tribunal's decision on mis-statement and suppression issues. 6. Timing of appeal decision and cross-objection filing. Analysis: 1. The case involved an application by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding alleged mis-statement of facts in a declaration filed under Rule 57G. The Revenue claimed that the party willfully mis-stated facts and wrongly described their inputs. The appeal papers for cross-objection were received late, leading to the alleged mis-statement issue. 2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Resistance Wire strips and ribbons of stainless steel. They filed declarations under Rule 57G for availing Modvat credit on imported raw materials. The classification and description of final products and inputs were crucial for Modvat credit eligibility. 3. The Department contended that the respondents had not declared the inputs as stainless steel, leading to suppression and denial of Modvat credit. The Department argued that the mis-statement warranted demand confirmation for an extended period due to the alleged suppression. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the composition of Electrical Resistance Wires and the Tariff classification under the Modvat Scheme. It noted that the non-mention of stainless steel wire was not significant as the composition of the wires was not disputed. The Tribunal interpreted the Tariff classification and composition to determine the eligibility for Modvat credit. 5. The Tribunal ultimately held that no mis-statement or suppression was involved. It accepted the argument that the same input was used for the same product, and the declaration filed in 1990 had been accepted by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no question of law arose regarding mis-statement and suppression, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's application. 6. Regarding the timing of the appeal decision and cross-objection filing, the Tribunal stated that the appeal was decided with the consent of the Departmental Representative, and the grievance about the timing did not warrant a question of law. The Tribunal rejected the application for reference to the High Court based on these grounds.
|
