2000 (12) TMI 644 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit due to discrepancies in declaration.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the disallowance of Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the appellant's alleged failure to declare the inputs correctly. The appellant contended that they had declared the input RENOCID F. Blue, but the Revenue claimed they took credit on RENOCID F. Blue 5 SR, arguing that 5 SR referred to the shade of dyes. The appellant relied on Rule 57G, amended by Notification No. 7/99-C.E., which stated that credit cannot be denied if the declaration does not contain all required details. The appellant also cited Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, clarifying the applicability of the amended rules to pending cases, and referred to the Kamakhya Steels case, emphasizing the Larger Bench decision's relevance.

During the hearing, the SDR reiterated the lower authorities' findings that the specific description was lacking in the declaration, and the declared inputs differed from those in dispute. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant declared RENOCID F. Blue as input, while credit was taken on RENOCID F. Blue 5 SR, without evidence showing they were distinct products. It was undisputed that both fell under the same tariff heading. The Tribunal highlighted the amendment to Rule 57G by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. dated 9-2-1999, emphasizing that credit should not be denied based on incomplete declarations. The Tribunal also referenced Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, which guided the application of amended rules to pending cases, as acknowledged in the Kamakhya Steels case by the Larger Bench.

Ultimately, due to the lack of evidence demonstrating a difference between the declared inputs and those on which credit was denied, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of consistency with the amended rules and guidelines in such cases.