1997 (5) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants Modvat credit to manufacturers for technical error, citing precedent and absence of deceptive intent.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting Modvat credit to the manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and bolts, nuts, and screws. Despite a technical ... Modvat - Declaration Issues:- Disallowance of Modvat credit due to incorrect declaration of inputs under Central Excise Rules.- Discrepancy between the description of goods in the declaration and the invoice.- Requirement of correct tariff classification for availing Modvat credit.Analysis:The case involved two appeals filed against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order disallowing Modvat credit to the appellants, who were manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and bolts, nuts, and screws. The issue arose as the department claimed that the inputs' description and their tariff classification in the declaration did not match those declared under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of credit, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.During the arguments, the appellants contended that while there was a technical mistake in declaring the inputs under the wrong sub-heading, the overall declaration regarding the final products and inputs was accurate. They cited precedents where a similar misclassification did not bar Modvat credit. On the other hand, the JDR highlighted discrepancies between the declaration and the invoice, emphasizing the importance of correct tariff classification for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A.After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed filed a declaration detailing the inputs and final products, with only a mistake in the tariff entry for bars and rods. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to conclude that an incorrect tariff classification, without the intention to deceive, should not prevent the availment of Modvat credit. The Tribunal referred to the case law and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants.