PROSEALS CLOSURES (P) LTD., Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant. However there was a request from them for an adjournment. On going through the issue involved herein and on hearing the Department Representative, I find the that the matter itself can be disposed of even in the absence of the party. Accordingly I proceed to pass this order.

(2.) THE issue relates to modvat credit. The appellant availed modvat credit on inputs. According to the party t hey are availing modvat credit on inputs and filed their first declaration under Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availment of credit paid on inputs under Rule 57A to the department on 30.3.90. It was also submitted that basic input is steel in different form -sheets/coils or strips. The process of manufacture in short is, where inputs is sheets, it involves cutting of sheets to size and then blanking and when the input is steel coils, which would be HR/CR coils, blanking can be directly undertaken. It was the contention of the party that there was no difference in input since both have the characteristics of steel and remains the same even after cutting process.

(3.) SH .Thomas, appearing for the revenue submitted that the party filed declaration only in respect of sheets/coils and the item CRCA stips involved herein is different from the items CR strips/coils since there is a separate tariff heading. He fairly conceded that duty paid nature of the document with reference to the input is not in dispute. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. It was the contention of the party that essential of steel remains same even after cutting the process and since the input are nothing but strips/coils and they are duly covered under 57G. CRCA strips are used in the manufacture of appellants' final product Drum closure which is one of the final products declared under Modvat Rule and does not come under excluded category of explanation of Rule 57A. There was no justification for the department to deny the benefit. It was also brought to my notice that the issue involved herein has already been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Switchgears Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1998 (103) ELT 437. In that case it was held that the appellant has declared the strips of iron falling under Chapter Heading no.72 of the Tariff as input. It was not the case of the Department that the input in question had not been used in the manufacture of final product. Accordingly Modvat credit cannot be denied. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal has followed the ratio of the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries (Supra) reported in 1991 (56) ELT 456 (T). In the facts and circumstances and as it was held in favour of the assessee in the similar position, following earlier decision referred to above, I do not find any justification in denying in the modvat credit and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.