1996 (4) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Modvat credit for the respondents.
2. Declaration of inputs in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Condonable nature of minor technical lapses in declaring inputs.
4. Interpretation of the declaration requirements under Rule 57G.
5. Applicability of previous case laws on Modvat credit entitlement.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal by the Revenue contested the Order-in-Appeal granting Modvat credit to the respondents for the period 6/1992 to 8/1992.

Issue 2: The dispute arose from the non-declaration of inputs, namely Bars and Rods of other alloy steels, in the declaration filed by the respondents on 9-4-1991 as required by Rule 57G. The Assistant Collector directed the reversal of Modvat credit due to this omission.

Issue 3: The Collector (Appeals) overturned the Assistant Collector's decision, deeming the non-declaration as a minor technical lapse, condonable under the circumstances. The Collector relied on previous tribunal decisions to support this stance.

Issue 4: The Revenue argued that the declaration should specifically mention the inputs and not rely on implications. They cited cases to emphasize the importance of accurate declaration under Rule 57G.

Issue 5: The Collector (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing that the error in declaring "strips" instead of "Bars and Rods" was a minor technical lapse, not warranting the denial of Modvat credit. The Collector referenced a similar case to justify the decision and distinguished it from the cases cited by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, affirming the Collector (Appeals)'s decision that the minor technical lapse in the declaration was condonable. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declaration of inputs for Modvat credit entitlement but deemed the error in this case as not substantial enough to warrant denial of credit.