1994 (1) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper filing of MODVAT Credit declaration under Rule 57G.
2. Contradictory orders by Collector (Appeals) for similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing auxiliary equipment of Textile Machinery, filed a declaration for MODVAT Credit for Pneumatics Products under sub-heading 8470 of the CET. The Department alleged improper filing of the declaration and directed the appellant to reverse the credit, leading to the impugned order.

2. The appellant's consultant argued that contradictory orders were issued by the Collector (Appeals) for similar cases involving the same party and identical inputs. In one case, the order was remanded due to lack of clarity in the declaration, while in another case, the declaration was deemed vague and the credit irregularity was confirmed. The consultant contended that these contradictory findings necessitated setting aside the impugned order and remanding the issue for reconsideration.

3. Upon review, it was observed that the Collector (Appeals) had issued conflicting orders for identical issues involving the same party. In one instance, the order was remanded as the declaration lacked clarity on whether the inputs were pneumatic products. In contrast, in another case, a broad and vague description in the declaration led to the inputs being treated as undeclared, justifying the denial of credit. The Tribunal found these contradictory findings irreconcilable and ordered the impugned order to be set aside for reconsideration by the Collector (Appeals) in accordance with the law.