LAWS(CE)-1988-10-1

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On October 05, 1988

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 30-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, by which he had upheld the order dated 27-11-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam Division, denying MODVAT credit facility to the appellants on some of their inputs for the manufacture of their final product.

(2.) The appellants manufacture among other things Switch Gear equipment and were availing of MODVAT facility under Chapter V AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On verification of the accounts maintained relating to the MODVAT credit availed viz. R.G. 23 Pt. II Register with the corresponding duty paid documents for the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-7-1986, it was seen by the officers of the Department that the appellants had taken credit in the Register under MODVAT Scheme in respect of certain inputs which were not included in the list of inputs declared for the purpose of MODVAT credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules by the appellants. Thereupon a Show Cause Notice was issued as to why the inadmissible credit should not be disallowed and as to why duty of Rs. 3,02,585.90 should not be recovered from them which had been erroneously taken into credit and utilised by the appellants under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector on consideration of their defence disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand. The Assistant Collector's order was upheld in appeal.

(3.) SHRI K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. arguing for the Department contended that the requirement of Rule 57G relating to declaration for MODVAT purposes is very clear. It requires the detailed description of the input as well as the finished product along with the sub-heading and heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Since the appellants had failed to do so in their declaration, merely giving broad description of input will not meet the purposes of the MODVAT declaration.