LAWS(CE)-2001-1-125

ASHOKA FOUNDRY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR

Decided On January 23, 2001
Ashoka Foundry Appellant
V/S
Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER dispensing with the condition of pre -deposit of duty amount of Rs. 86,441.00 and penalty of Rs. 5,000.00, I take up the appeal itself, as the issue lies in a narrow compass.

(2.) THE appellants had filed a declaration on 24 -11 -1994 under provisions of Rule 57G declaring the inputs for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit. One of the inputs declared by the appellants was copper waste and scrap falling under Heading 7404.00. As the waste and scrap of copper received by the appellants mostly consisted of breaking of ships and the same was also covered by the said Heading 74.04, there was no dispute about the availment of Credit. However, with effect from 16 -3 -1995, another Tariff Heading 7420.00 was introduced in the Tariff specifically covering the goods and materials obtained by breaking of ships. In February, 1996, the appellants availed the Credit in respect of the copper and articles thereof, which were obtained by breaking of ships. The Department entertained a view that since with effect from 16 -3 -1995, a separate entry for the said goods has been introduced, the appellants should have filed a fresh declaration indicating a separate Heading 7420.00 for the said materials. Since it was not done, the availment of credit was incorret.

(3.) ON the other hand, the appellants contended that they had been availing the Credit in respect of the said materials by declaring them as waste and scrap right from the inception of their factory. Inasmuch as the declaration in respect of the same very goods was already on record, they did not feel necessary to file a separate declaration indicating new Tariff Heading. In any case, the Modvat credit was taken on 10 -2 -1996 and a revised declaration incorporating that Heading 7420.00 was filed by them on 31 -5 -1996. The Assistant Commissioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 57G(5) should have condoned the delay in filing the said declaration. There was no justification for denying the benefit of Modvat credit.