TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; The remaining goods were not covered by the definition of capital goods as given in clause (1) of the explanation to Rule 57Q. 2. Arguing on the first ground, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they had admittedly filed the MODVAT Declarations in respect of the following capital goods :- Sl. No. Description Tariff Classification (a) Parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with wire drawing machines 8466.00 (b) Components/Accessories for Wire Drawing Machines 8466.00 (c) Electrical machinery and equipments and parts thereof 8537.00 (d) Parts suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of Heading No. 84.25 to 84.30 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipt of the goods, due intimations were given to the Superintendent of Central Excise and in the said intimations, full details about individual names of the capital goods, their sizes, quantity, tariff classification, numbers and dates of the duty paying documents, uses etc. were mentioned. Thus duty paying documents were also filed along with the monthly RT-12 returns. In these circumstances, the rejection of the Modvat Credit on the ground that the declarations were vague, was not justified. In support of his above submissions, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate for the appellants referred to the following decisions :- (a) 1998 (103) E.L.T. 672 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE) - Aluminium Bronze Rods and Phosphor Bronze Wire held to be covered by the Declaration "Bars and rods, Wire of Copper and Copper Alloys". (g) 1995 (79) E.L.T. 335 (J.K. Industries v. CCE) - The description "rubber processing chemicals and others" was held sufficient to include retarder which is nothing else but a rubber processing chemical. (h) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 655 (Shree Shyam Philaments v. CCE) - The declaration mentioned generic name, namely, "surface active agents". It was held sufficient to cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.20, the modvat credit cannot be denied due to non-mentioning of specific names of the castings. 2.2 He also referred to the amended provisions of Rule 57T vide which sub-rule 13 was introduced to the effect that Modvat Credit should not be denied on the technical ground of the Declarations not being in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57T(1). 2.3 As regards rejection of the Modvat credit on the ground that the items did not qualify as capital goods in terms of the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q, he raised a number of grounds. 3. After hearing Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, I find that the denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the Declarations were vague when the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital goods and in case the invoice in question gives details of the capital goods and the assessee has filed the declaration, the Assistant Commissioner would allow Credit of Duty so paid after making enquiry. Inasmuch as the appellants in the present case have filed the Declarations with correct sub-headings, though detailed description in some of the cases in respect of the goods has not been given and the same have been described as parts and accessories of headings of particular machines in view of the Notification in question and subsequent clarifications issued by the Board, such minor procedural irregularities, if at all, cannot be made the basis for denying the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the capital goods especially w....