Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Steel And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1996(82)ELT123(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order-in-original No. 98/93, dated 21-12-1993 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise.
2. Ld. Counsel stated that in this case, they have filed the Modvat declaration indicating Hot Rolled Steel Strips as their input and taken Modvat credit with reference to the bills of entries which also showed the description of the goods as Hot Rolled Steel Coils and strips.
3. There is no dispute about the description of the goods. However, in their Modvat declaration they have indicated the Heading as 7211.59 where as in the Bills of Entry, the headings shown was 7208.90 and its sub-headings.
4. It was their submission that the description of Hot Rolled Steel-Strips was rightly given. However, the sub-heading was erroneously shown and the error went un-noticed over a period of time.
5. As a matter of fact, they have only used the goods imported under the bill of entry for the purpose of making their final product namely Cold Rolled Steel Strips and there is no doubt or dispute about it.
6. It was also his submission that rate of duty was the same under both the headings.
7. Ld. DR strongly opposed the prayer stating that the Tariff classified the Hot Rolled Steel Strips of less than 600 mm under one heading and more than 600 mm under other heading. Therefore, they were required to be treated differently and in accordance with the tariff. In the Modvat declaration, the appellant had not merely mentioned the headings but also the sub-headings which was shown as 11 whereas the goods received as per Bills of Entry were of a different sub-heading namely 08. It was his submission that it has already been held in a series of cases by the Tribunal that description is required to be specified and he would like to cite the case of Chetna Industries and others in this respect.
8. Ld. Counsel also stated that he is also in position to cite other cases in which the Tribunal has held that broad description is sufficient.
9. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the ratio of a series of Tribunal's orders is that description should be sufficient to enable the officers to come to a correct decision; but what is sufficient in a given case will vary from case to case and there cannot be hard and fast rule in this regard.
10. In the present case, admittedly the description is broadly the same as in the bills of entry and the Modvat declaration. Whether the details of description and the details of sub-heading are going to make any difference or not is arguable, could be considered at length at the time of hearing of the appeal. At this stage, since no other dispute is apparently involved and the Deptt. has not shown that the goods received were not used or could not have been used for the manufacture of declared final product, we feel that prima facie, the appellant's request was justified. We, therefore, waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal.