2000 (7) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They procure iron scrap from outside, melt the same and manufacture MCI inserts using moulds. The product is supplied to manufacturers of concrete (railway) sleepers, who use them as inputs for their products. The appellants had taken Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 3,98,160.49 on inputs used for manufacture of MCI Inserts; during the period February to May, 1997, after filing a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the Modvat credit so taken under Rule 57A, on the ground that, in the declaration filed by the party under Rule 57G, the final product namely 'MCI Inserts' had not been declar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ld. Sr. Advocate Shri M. Chandrasekharan for the appellants and ld. JDR Shri Y.R. Kilania for the respondents. 6. Ld. Sr. Advocate has, after reiterating the grounds of the appeals, cited a plethora of decisions of this Tribunal on issues identical with the ones involved in these appeals. With reference to appeal No. E/1388/2000, ld. Counsel has made particular mention of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [1996 (88) E.L.T. 413 (T)]. In that case, a 2-Member Bench was dealing with the classification dispute relating to 'MCI Inserts' used as raw material for the manufacture of concrete sleepers. The Bench, after considering the various processes to which the Inserts were su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 274]. (iii)       Orient Steel Industries v. CCE [1999 (107) E.L.T. 728]. (iv)       Eicher Motors v. CC [1997 (95) E.L.T. 433]. As rightly submitted by ld. Advocate, there is no dispute of the fact that the inputs in question were duty-paid and were received and utilised by the appellants in the manufacture of MCI Inserts in their factory. The only question is whether the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,98,160.49 taken on the inputs could have been denied on the sole ground that the final products were not described specifically as 'MCI Inserts' in the Rule 57G declaration. This issue is one which stands squarely covered in favour of the assessees by numerous decisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 57G now arises for consideration in Appeal No. E/1389/2000. Arguing for the appellants on this issue, ld. Sr. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal (2-Member Bench) in the case of Kalyani Steels v. CCE [1998 (99) E.L.T. 620]. In that case, the appellants had filed a declaration under Rule 57T and such declaration contained all information required to be furnished under Rule 57G in relation to the goods on which credit was to be taken. The Tribunal held that Modvat credit on the goods as inputs was admissible under Rule 57A notwithstanding the failure to file declaration under Rule 57G. The Tribunal has held to the same effect in numerous subsequent cases too. There being no dispute on the sufficiency or otherwise ....