Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Maxmann Business Machines P. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. And C. Ex. on 4 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(160)ELT176(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellant manufacturers computers. They filed a declaration on 14-8-89, in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 declaring the description of inputs as "Computer parts".
2. This was amplified on 18-9-1992 whereby specific details of a number of assemblies and sub-assemblies were given. Show cause notice was issued on 12-11-1992 alleging wrong availment of Modvat credit of Rs. 53,917/-. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty of Rs. 30,694/-and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-, on the observation that the inputs were not specifically declared.
3. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) a citation was made of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise [1990 (46) E.L.T. 392 (T)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was neither relevant nor applicable. For failure to declare the parts in details he upheld the lower order. Hence, the appeal.
4. Shri Mehta submits that the judgment cited before the Commissioner was very relevant. In addition he shows the Board Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, dated 23-2-1999 wherein reference was made to Sub-rule (11) in Rule 57G inserted vide Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (NT.), dated 9-2-1999 and pending cases were directed to be disposed of accordingly. In such cases this Tribunal has held that discrepancy in the declaration could not remain a valid reason for denial of the benefits.
5. The appeal is allowed.