1994 (5) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against MODVAT credit; Compliance with Rule 57G declaration requirements; Allowance of MODVAT credit for undeclared items.

In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the MODVAT credit issue. The Collector had condoned the respondent's lapse in not declaring certain finished products as required by Rule 57G. The appellant Collector argued that the respondent's declaration did not comply with the specific columns required by the proforma under Rule 57G, as it only mentioned one item, resulting in the availing of MODVAT credit for other undeclared items. The learned SDR reiterated this argument, emphasizing the necessity of declaring both inputs and finished products for MODVAT credit eligibility.

The learned Consultant for the respondent acknowledged the omission of two items in the declaration but contended that the declaration of a tariff heading covering those items should be considered compliant with Rule 57G. Upon consideration, the Tribunal noted that the respondents indeed failed to declare the two items, cushion gums, and tread strips, while availing MODVAT credit for them. The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 57G requires a declaration that clearly communicates the nature of inputs and finished products. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal emphasized that a general description or a broad classification is insufficient for MODVAT credit eligibility.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority erred in allowing MODVAT credit for the two undeclared items. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision and granted the appeal of the Revenue, reinstating the original authority's order regarding the two items in question. The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with Rule 57G requirements for availing MODVAT credit and clarifies that a detailed and accurate declaration is essential for such benefits.