Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 18 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(87)ELT252(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeai, dtd. 12-1.0-1993 which is confirmed, the order by the Assistant Collector denying the Modvat Credit in respect of 4 items confirming the demands of Rs. 99,245.86.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of tractors, lubrication system for infantory cambat vehicles, M.V. Parts etc. falling under Chapter 87.08, 87.10 and 84.83 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of Modvat Scheme. They received the goods namely, DC Electric Motor, Connecting Rod and Mandral and claimed Modvat Credit. The department's case is that the appellants had declared these inputs in their declaration which had not been filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These goods had been received by G.P.Is No. 6 dated 22-3-1991 No. 18 dated 6-1-1992, No. 159 dated 23-6-1992, No. 187 dated 11-7-1992 and availed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 81,400 and Rs. 12,338.49 respectively. It is also stated, that G.P.I No. 18 dated 6-1-1992, the address of the consignee was found mutilated and amended later on; considering in the light of Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the department took the view that such cuttings of the address on the GP should not be allowed, and held it as illegal. As regards GP 3040 dated 14-12-1991, the department took the view that it was meant for Eicher Tractors, Faridabad and not to the appellants and hence, the Credit is not available.
3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate pointed out to the declaration filed in this regard and submitted that the declaration which had been filed was for oil priming/injecting pump assembly and the sub-heading shown was 84.10. It is his contention that the DC Electric Motor form parts of this assembly and therefore, benefit of the Modvat Credit cannot be denied in respect of DC Electric Motor. However, he fairly agreed that DC Electric Motor had been independently brought as an input which was separately classifiable under 85.01 and that no separate declaration had been filed for this. As regards the order pertaining to connecting rod, the Learned Advocate submitted that the declaration filed was in respect of forging and bar stock and the classification heading shown was 7326.19. It is his contention that this input 'connecting rod' is nothing but 'forging and bar stock' falling under Heading 7326.19 and therefore, the input was covered as per declaration. He submitted that the gate pass also referred to the description of 'forging' under Heading 7326.19. It is his contention that there are hundreds of forged products and therefore, in the declaration they had only mentioned the main heading without giving list of these hundreds of forged products which are used as inputs. He submitted that the declaration has since been amended and they have given details of all the forged products to the department.
4. As regards Mandral, the Learned Advocate pointed out that the GP. 1 was in the name of Eicher Tractor, Faridabad and it had been sent to the appellant's company. It is his submission that there is no misutilisation of this gate pass in the other unit at Faridabad and it is only a technical lapse inasmuch as the GP. 1 should have been endorsed from the unit at Faridabad. It is his submission that the Tribunal in the case of Siya Ram Platex (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 915 in similar circumstances has granted the benefit.
5. As regards the denial of Modvat Credit of Rs. 53,900 with regard to Electric Motor, the learned Advocate submitted that the allegation is that the gate pass refers to as "Eicher Motor Parwanoo". He submitted that there is no company by name Eicher Motors Parwanoo and it is only the appellant's unit Eicher Tractor which is located in Parwanoo. He submitted that the gate pass had by mistake referred as Eicher Motor and to this effect the supplier had also sent a certificate admitting the mistake and correcting the name of the appellants on the gate pass. Therefore, he submitted that it is a technical error, which can always be corrected and the department was bound to have accepted the certificate of the supplier and permitted the appellants to utilise the Modvat Credit.
6. The learned DR submitted that there is no declaration filed separately for DC Electric Motor and therefore, it cannot be considered as an assembly of oil priming assembly. He submitted that the DC Electric Motor for oil priming assembly are different and the gate pass referred as DC Motor only and hence, the Modvat Credit for this input has been rightly rejected.
7. As regards the connecting rod, the Learned DR submitted that there is no specific declaration for connecting rod and a general description in the declaration cannot be accepted as a declaration for connecting rod.
8. As regards the Mandral, the Learned DR submitted that the gate pass cannot be accepted, as the same was in the appellant's unit. The same argument was pressed for the Electric Motor in which the appellants' name had been wrongly described. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is required to be sustained.
9. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I notice that there has been no declaration filed in respect of input DC Electric Motor. This item has been described in the G.P. 1 as DC Motor only and not as the Oil Priming Pump Assembly. The tariff heading of both the items are different. Therefore, rejection of the grant of Modvat Credit in respect of DC Electric Motor is justified.
10. As regards the claim for benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of connecting rod, I see lot of force in the Learned Advocate's contention. The appellant had described the input as forging and bar stock. The assessee has explained that there are hundreds of forged products and all those forged products/inputs are covered under 7326.19 and they are required to be granted the benefit. He submitted that the gate pass had shown the declaration as forging. In view of this submission, I accept their contention and the denial of Modvat Credit on connecting rod is not justified. The benefit is required to be granted in view of the acceptance of the declaration by the department on the description forging and bar stock. There is no dispute that the item is forging and bar stock hence the benefit in respect of this item is allowed.
11. As regards the rejection of gate pass in respect of item Mandral, the Learned Advocate had pointed out that the gate pass was intended for the unit at Faridabad and the same could have been re-endorsed for the appellants. I accept this plea in the light of the judgment cited in the case of Siya Ram Platex Co. Ltd. This matter is remanded to the lower authorities to give an opportunity to the appellants to rectify the technical defect in the G.P. 1.
12. As regards the claim for the benefit in respect of Electric Motor, there is a mistake in writing the correct name of the appellant in GP 1. The supplier had issued a certificate to this effect that the appellant had been wrongly described as Eicher Motor instead of Eicher Tractor. The fact remains that there is no company named Eicher Motor at Faridabad. Therefore, the error being technical in nature and the supplier himself has issued a certificate to this effect there was no justification to deny the benefit on this input. There is dispute that this electric motor had been declared.
13. In that view of the matter, the claim for grant of Modvat Credit in respect of -
(i) DC Electric Motor is rejected
(ii) Connecting rod is allowed
(iii) Mandral claim is remanded to the lower authorities
(iv) Electric Motor is allowed.
14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.