1997 (8) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal emphasizes fair consideration for Modvat benefit eligibility, overruling objection.

The Tribunal did not make any further orders on the classification issue of Vulcanised Rubber Spindle Drive Power Transmission Belts, as the appellants ... Appeal - Alternative plea Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff, Modvat benefit eligibilityClassification Issue:The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the classification of Vulcanised Rubber Spindle Drive Power Transmission Belts. The appellants contended that their manufacturing process fell under sub-heading No. 4010.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. They purchased the rubberised fabric and undertook the remaining processes themselves. The department argued for classification under sub-headings 5909.00, 4201.90, and 3926.90 based on the material predominance. The appellants objected to the department's attempt to change the classification, emphasizing that there was no legal basis for the reclassification as the goods had always been classified under sub-heading 4010.00. Eventually, the appellants withdrew their classification issue, and the Tribunal did not make any further orders on this matter.Modvat Benefit Eligibility Issue:The appellants sought Modvat benefit eligibility after withdrawing the classification issue. The Departmental Representative (DR) objected, stating that the Modvat benefit could only be granted if all conditions were met, which were not considered in the lower levels due to the focus on classification. However, the appellants had been consistently requesting the recrediting of Modvat credit if the classification changed. The Tribunal acknowledged the DR's theoretical correctness but emphasized that the change in classification necessitated consideration of the Modvat aspect. The Tribunal overruled the DR's objection and directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the Modvat benefit eligibility based on the observations made, allowing the benefit if due. The Tribunal highlighted that minor procedural infractions should not hinder granting a substantial benefit if rightfully deserved, emphasizing a fair consideration based on merits and providing the appellants with an opportunity to be heard.