Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E., Jamshedpur on 26 July, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. The Modvat credit has been disallowed to the appellants by the Authorities below on the ground that during the relevant period the declaration filed by them under the provisions of Rule 57T in respect of capital goods was not specific declaration but was vague.
2. After hearing Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhya, learned JDR for the Revenue I find that the Original Adjudicating Authority has discussed each and every individual item of capital goods and has come to the conclusion that the same were not specific inasmuch as the name and the brand name and description of the capital goods was not indicated. In some cases the appellants have declared the chapter headings with the description of the goods as parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machine of a particular heading. DR. Chakraborty has drawn my attention to the Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 9.2.99 vide which the Clause 13 was inserted i n the provisions of Rule 57T. Rule 57T (13) (ii) is to the effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that declaration filed under Sub-Rule (1) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein or the manufacturer fails to comply with any other requirements under Sub-rule (1), provided that Assistant Commissioner of C.Ex. having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer intending to take credit is satisfied that he duties due on the capital goods have been paid and such capital goods have actually been used or are to be used in the manufacture of final products. He submits that further guidelines have been issued by the Board in respect of the said Notification vide Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23.2.1999. Para 2 of the said Circular is to the effect that the Assistant Commissioner before issuing Show-cause Notice for wrong availment of Modvat credit by the assessee on any procedural ground, shall conduct enquiry with regard to duty paid nature of the goods at the Supplier's end and satisfy himself about the use of the capital goods and in case the invoice in question gives details of the capital goods and the assessee has filed the declaration, the Assistant Commissioner would allow credit of duty so paid after making enquiry. As such submits Dr. Chakraborty that the rejection of the Modvat credit on the ground that detailed description of the goods was not given is not correct. He submits that there is no dispute about the duty paid character of the goods and their use in the appellant's factory. He also clarifies that declaration was filed in 1995 and the appellants according to their own understanding had given a proper declaration. He also refers to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Meerut - 2000 (121) ELT 247 (Tribunal-LB) and submits that in that case by taking note of the Notification No. 7/99 the matter was set aside and remanded for de novo consideration.
3. I have also heard Shri A.K. Chattopadhya, learned JDR for the Revenue.
4. There is no dispute as regards filing of declaration by the appellants under the provisions of Rule 57T. The only objection by the Revenue is that said declaration does not specify the goods by name or brand name. However, it is seen that in most of the cases correct sub-headings have been inserted though details description of the goods has not been given and the same has been described as parts and accessories of heading of particular machine. Keeping in view the amendment carried out vide Notification No. 7/99 and the subsequent clarification issued by the Board, I am of the view that such minor procedural irregularity, if at all, cannot be made the basis for delaying the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the capital goods especially when there is no allegation about non-duty paid character of the goods and their utilisation in the appellant's factory. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Pronounced in Court)