TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 as wire of non-alloy steel as against the utilisation of inputs which is said to be wire of non-alloy steel coated with zinc. Both the inputs fall under the same Tariff Heading 7217.90 and both the inputs are specified for utilisation of MODVAT Credit. The appellants contended that they were utilising the MODVAT Credit in respect of this product for a long time and the GP 1 had clearly indicated the product as wire of non-alloy steel coated with zinc and the same had been accepted by the department time and again. However, on an audit inspection two demands were raised by show cause notice dated 13-8-1993 for the period February to April, 1993 and as a consequence of this, demands of duty has been confirmed by the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts and the same having been accepted by the department all along and even for subsequent period then in that case such a variance in the description in the gate pass is a minor and technical breach, which is required to be ignored in terms of the judgments and the trade notice cited by him. He also submitted that the inputs wire of non-alloy steel coated with zinc is also a specified input for availing MODVAT Credit and the department had been scrutinising the gate passes and accepting the same. As otherwise also they are entitled for the benefit. He pointed out that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that they should give a broad description of the item in the declaration in terms of the law stated in the Tribunal s judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cases where they show in the declaration one type of input, which is entitled for MODVAT but instead utilise any other non-specified input. In this particular case, wires non-coated or coated with zinc, both are specified inputs. The classification of both the items are under the same Tariff sub-heading. There is no allegation that they have improperly taken credit in this case. The Tribunal had examined a similar issue in the case of Ramakrishna Steel Industries (supra) wherein the description given in the declaration was Molybdenum. They were utilising Molybdenum scrap as an input and claiming the benefit. The Tribunal held that they were entitled to avail the benefit in view of the fact that both the inputs fall under the same chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The parties had contended that they were entitled for MODVAT Credit. The department had taken objection that the parties had not filed the declaration and hence no MODVAT Credit can be granted to them. The Tribunal went into this question in great detail and after noting the High Court s judgment held that so long as the benefit is available to them the same cannot be denied to the assessees as in the case of Apex Steels (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 368 and also in the case of Chamundi Steels Rerolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 (Tribunal) = 1994 (3) RLT 855. This view was subsequently followed in the case of Geeta Steel Rolling Mills v. Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
