Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Aryan Exporters P. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(91)ELT216(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Lucknow who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 37479/-from the appellants herein. The amount confirmed represents deemed credit wrongly availed by the appellants on steel plates which are not inputs covered under the deemed credit scheme.
2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel Shri Gopal Prasad submits that the inputs received by the appellants were not plates but were steel sheets and therefore, it was only a case of wrong description of the inputs and that Modvat credit had been rightly availed on sheets received by the appellants. He also draws my attention to the difference between sheets and plates as recognised in the Iron and Steel Industry and as reflected in Notification 170/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 wherein plates have been defined as "hot or rolled flat product...in rectangular cross-section of thickness exceeding 5 mm...,." while sheets are of thickness not exceeding 5 mm, and in this onnection, he draws my attention to the document describing thickness of the goods as 5 mm.
3. Learned DR, Shri Ram Sharan submits that there is nothing to bear out the contention of the appellants that what they received was actually sheets even though described as plates and in this connection, he refers to the entry of these inputs in the RG 23A Part I register as plates and he submits that the documents describing the goods have been subsequently amended by introduction of the word "sheets" only in order to get the benefit of the deemed credit which is available on sheets and not on plates. He, therefore, pleads that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal rejected.
4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find great force in the submissions of the learned DR that there is nothing on record to show that what the appellants had ordered was sheets and not plates. - there is no declaration also as to what their inputs are - whether sheets or plates. Even if their case of wrong description is to be accepted then there is nothing to show that the appellants took any action on receipt of the wrong items viz. plates when they had actually ordered sheets and it is also clear from the bills and cash memos that the goods have been clearly described as plates of 5 mm thickness. In the absence of any material to substantiate the contention of the appellants that the inputs received by them were sheets and not plates, the Department's finding that the inputs received by the appellants on which they had taken deemed credit are plates and, therefore, not entitled to deemed credit, is not to be faulted with. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below and reject the appeal.