Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. B. Raj Steel & Agro Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(149)ELT712(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
P.S. Bajaj
1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the entitlement of the modvat credit on ingots scrap. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1.5.96, disallowing the modvat credit of Rs.25,284/- on the ground that the ingots scrap was covered under sub-heading 7204 of the Tariff and could not be used rerolling material.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants were using only defective ingots for rerolling purposes in the mill and had availed modvat credit of the disputed amount which had now been disallowed by the authorities below, to that extent. He has further submitted that the case of the appellants stands fully covered by the ratio of law laid down in 'Munoth Industries vs. CC Hyderabad' (1996 (84) ELT 285) but the authorities below had not applied that same without any cause.
3. Ld. SDR on the other hand, has also not disputed that the case of the appellants has not been decided regarding the modvat credit, in accordance with the ratio of law laid down in the case cited by the Counsel, referred to above.
4. I have gone through the record. In Munoth Industries case (supra) the Tribunal has ruled that inputs viz. rerollable scrap material if used for rerolling, the benefit of modvat credit was admissible to the assessee i respective of the fact whether the inputs were described as waste and scrap under sub-heading 7204 of the Tariff. The ratio of the law laid down in that case, had not been considered by the authorities below while declining the claim for the modvat credit, of the disputed amount, of the appellants. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that he presumed that the ingots even if defective could not be used as inputs in rolling mill and were not covered under heading 7204 of the Tariff. He has failed to refer to the law laid down by the Tribunal in the Munoth Industries case, referred to above while deciding the matter. Therefore his impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter must be sent back to the adjudicating authorities for deciding the issue afresh keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in Munoth Industries case (supra).
5. Accordingly the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside, and the matter is sent back for redecision in the light of the observations made above. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the Court)