1998 (3) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of goods for availing modvat credit.
2. Whether the inputs were declared correctly.
3. Admissibility of modvat credit based on declaration.

Analysis:
1. The Dy. Collector found that the appellant did not mention the correct measurement and classified the goods under the wrong sub-heading. The appeal before the ld. Collr. (Appeals) focused on whether the inputs were declared or not. The appellants argued that the correct sub-heading was not mentioned but the inputs were received, duty was paid, and the rate of duty was the same for both widths. They cited relevant case law to support their position.

2. The ld. Constt. for the appellants argued that the declaration mentioned the correct chapter number but not the width of the inputs, which led to the denial of modvat credit. The respondent contended that the inputs used exceeded the declared width, justifying the disallowance of modvat credit. The main issue was whether the declaration was sufficient without specifying the width and if the precise mention of width was essential for claiming modvat credit.

3. The judge observed that the declaration mentioned hot rolled stainless steel not exceeding 600 mm, whereas the appellants used sheets exceeding 600 mm. However, both widths fell under Chapter 72, and previous tribunal decisions emphasized that technicalities should not hinder modvat credit. Considering the broad description in the declaration, the rate of duty, and past rulings in favor of the appellants, the judge held that modvat credit should be allowed. The appeal was consequently allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of inputs for availing modvat credit and the significance of technicalities in such cases. The decision underscores that substantive rights should not be denied based on minor discrepancies in declarations, especially when the essential details and chapter headings align with the intended purpose of the credit.