1998 (2) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of input material for Modvat credit.
2. Discrepancy in declaration of input material.
3. Interpretation of High Tensile Steel Wire and Stranded Steel Wire.
4. Review of Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding the classification of input material for Modvat credit. The respondents, manufacturers of cement sleepers, were accused of not declaring Stranded Steel Wire as their input material, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings, but a review application by the Commissioner was rejected, prompting the current appeal.

The appellant argued that the respondents received Stranded Steel Wire but declared it as High Tensile Steel Wire, claiming the two materials are different. They highlighted that during the period in question, Stranded Steel Wire was classified under a specific sub-heading. Commercial declarations by other entities were used to support this argument.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that they received only Stranded Steel Wire, and the Modvat credit should not be denied based on declaration discrepancies. The Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the lapse in declaration revision but found that the respondents correctly availed the credit for the inputs received.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted the dispute regarding the distinction between High Tensile Steel Wire and Stranded Steel Wire. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no evidence to prove they were different and concluded that High Tensile Steel Wire referred to the quality of Stranded Steel Wire. Both parties presented evidence supporting their positions, leading the Tribunal to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was instructed to determine whether the two materials are understood differently in commercial terms and allow both parties to submit additional evidence for consideration before reaching a new decision.