Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Neera Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(102)ECC31
ORDER P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Two short issues are involved in this matter.
(i) whether the appellants' declaration as MS Plates and GP Sheets showing Tariff Heading 7909 will cover the actual inputs obtained by the appellant under Tariff Headings 7208.11 and 7210.19 with description plates and GP sheets.
(ii) whether the goods in two invoices correlated with the goods purchased by the appellant from the manufacturer which shows payment of duty.
2. I have heard both the sides.
3. As regards the first issue, the lower authorities have taken the view that the inputs actually obtained by the appellant fall under different Tariff Headings then what has been declared by him in the declaration under Rule 57G. We have to read the declaration as a whole description as well as the Tariff Heading and sub-heading. The description has been given as MS Plates and GP Sheets. There is no dispute about it. This description is wide enough to cover MS Plates and GP Sheets of all sizes under all sub-headings. Headings and sub-heading have been given merely for the purpose of broadly qualifying the description, but it does not attach itself to the same Heading and sub-heading otherwise the appellant would have mentioned the specific size of the Plates and GP Sheets. That obviously is not the case in the instant matter. I am, therefore, of the view that differences in Tariff Heading and sub-heading of the inputs actually obtained from that of the heading and sub-heading in the declaration made under Rule 57G is not material. Consequently, I accept the plea of the appellant in respect of six invoices at Sl. Nos. 3 to 8 mentioned in brief facts of the order-in-original.
4. As regards the non-correlation of the inputs actually obtained by the appellants from the registered dealer vis-a-vis the particulars of the invoices obtained by the registered dealer as stamp on the invoices issued by the registered dealer to the appellant, I observe that the lower authorities have completely mis-read the stamp of the original manufacturer on the invoices issued by the registered dealer to the appellant, For example, the rubber stamp on invoice No. 598 is in the following manner.
"Invoice No. 1169, dated 14-8-1994 Amount 80,59//-
Rate of duty 15%
Amount of duty 12,150/-"
5. The registered dealer's invoices mentioned 15 spools sold to the appellant and the amount of duty involved on the quantity so sold is Rs. 991.96. It is this amount which has been disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that the original invoices shows an amount of duty of Rs. 12,150/- and the quantity as 144 spools whereas the invoices issued by the registered dealer shows the quantity of 15 spools and an amount of duty of Rs. 991.96. Hence the authorities below have inferred that the goods are not correlated. I am afraid such a view is patently wrong. The Invoices particulars of the original manufacturer shows me sale made by the original manufacturer to the registered dealer. The invoices of registered dealer to the appellant will show the quantity sold to me appellant and not the original quantity. It is difficult to understand as to how the finding of non-correlation can be made on these particulars. Non-correlation should be defined on some other evidence like marking etc. But no such evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to bring home the finding of non-correlation. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in this finding as well of the lower authorities.
6. In view of foregoing discussion, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Since the appeal itself has been disposed of, the stay petition also gets disposed of.