Modvat credit dispute over vague declaration remanded after inconsistent appellate findings on similar facts.

Modvat credit was denied on the ground that the Rule 57G declaration was vague, but earlier appellate orders on materially similar facts had reached inconsistent conclusions. Because the same type of declaration and input pattern had not been examined on a coherent factual basis, the impugned order could not be sustained. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order denying Modvat credit on the ground of a vague declaration under Rule 57G could be sustained when earlier appellate orders on identical facts had taken mutually inconsistent views.

Analysis: The declarations and the inputs involved were materially similar, yet one appellate order treated the matter as unclear and required a remand for a speaking order, while another held the declaration to be broadly vague and upheld denial of credit. The inconsistency in findings on the same type of declaration and the same issue showed that the matter had not been examined on a coherent factual basis. In these circumstances, the proper course was to set aside the impugned order and direct reconsideration of the issue in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision.

---