Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Super Collapsible Tube Industries Pvt. ... vs C.C.E. on 6 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1995(75)ELT820(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. Since I have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides, the stay application may also be treated as disposed of.
2. The appeal is directed against the order in appeal bearing No. V-2A(MV) 189/92, dated 30-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are availing modvat credit after filing declaration. In the declaration, they have declared aluminium slugs classified under Chapter Heading 76 and coating paints and printing inks classifiable under Chapter Heading 32. However, under Gate Pass No. 40, dated 6-6-1990 they have received certain inputs described as aluminium blank classifiable under Chapter Heading 76, in respect of which modvat credit has been taken and the input material has been utilised in the manufacture of aluminium tubes. Under another Gate Pass No. 004752, they received certain inputs described as Met track additive and under another Gate Pass No. 004750, they received inputs described as 'R.C. Vinyl Reducer' classifiable under Chapter Heading 3814. The Department objected to the credits' in respect of these inputs which have been received under the aforesaid Gate passes, on the ground that no declaration is available and hence modvat credit is not permissible. In that view, adjudication order was passed by the Asstt. Collector. When the matter was taken up before the Collector (Appeals), it was rejected and hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Shri Jagesha, the ld. advocate, appearing for the appellants, took me through the declaration and also the relevant Gate Passes. According to his plea, the met track additive is the additive needed for diluting printing ink and it is also classifiable under Chapter 32 and hence it is covered by the description printing ink given in the declaration. As regards R.C. Reducer, he pleads that it is required for coating and in the declaration, they have given 'coating paints' and hence this item is also construed to be covered by the declaration. As regards aluminium blanks, he submitted that the supplier has clarified that it is only aluminium slugs, which they have supplied and by mistake, they have given the description as aluminium blanks. Both the aluminium slugs and aluminium blanks are the raw materials required for manufacture of aluminium tubes. Both are covered by the same Chapter Heading 76 and there is no difference in the rate of duty. Hence, it cannot be held that these items are not covered by the declaration.
5. Shri Ravinder Jain, the ld. JDR, on behalf of the Department, contended that the description in the modvat declaration is the vital one and if the goods are not received in accordance with the description given in the declaration, then those inputs are not covered by the declaration and hence modvat credit cannot be availed of. In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 332 (SRB) and 1992 (60) E.L.T. 271 (NRB) and also this Bench decision in the case of Subramanium & Co., reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 547. Shri Jain points out that in the case of met track additive, it is not printing ink. It is an additive needed for preparation of printing ink before application and hence the declaration given for printing ink cannot seek to cover this input. Likewise, in the case of the R.C. Reducer, even the classification is different. Coating paint is classifiable under Chapter 32, whereas the R.C. Reducer is classifiable under Ch. 38. In the case of aluminium blank, since there is a difference between blank and slug, the aluminium blanks received, being not covered by the description 'aluminium slugs', is not eligible for modvat credit.
6. Shri Jagesha, however, refers to the decision of the South Regional Bench reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289 (Cegat) to urge that the modvat credit is admissible in the case of aluminium blanks, since the above decision holds that there is no material distinction between copper bars & wire rods.
7. After hearing both the sides, I find that in so far as the Met track additive and R.C. Reducer are concerned, it cannot be used as such as printing ink or as coating paints. They are to be added for preparing printing ink or for coating paints, as the case may be. Hence, the description given in the declaration does not seek to cover these additives, and I agree with Shri Ravinder Jain that disallowance of modvat credit can be justified. However, in the case of aluminium blanks, both slugs as well as blanks are under the same Chapter Heading and they are recognised as raw materials for the manufacture of aluminium tubes. Moreover, the supplier of these materials has also sent a letter indicating that the description in gate pass has been wrongly given as aluminium blanks. In any case, when viewed in the context of the nature of the material received and the description in the modvat declaration, I would deem it proper to extend modvat credit in respect of the Gate Pass No. 40 dated 6-6-1990 received from Western Slug Industries. I also find that the suppliers are mainly manufacturers of slugs. In view of this, I partly allow the appeal and order restoration of modvat credit denied in respect of Gate Pass No. 40, dated 6-6-1990.