HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The issue relates to modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57 -I and interest under Rule 57 -I(3) and penalty of Rs. 25,000/ -(Twentyfive thousand). The ld. Counsel submitted that irrespective of the fact that chapter heading is different in the declaration even then the minor variations in heading cannot disqualify the modvat credit. The main point of denial of modvat credit appears to be that the appellants have not filed any declaration under Rule 57G. The contention of the appellant is that under Rule 57G (1) of CER, 1944 on 1.3.1997 describing it as "PPT SILICA" under S.H.No. 2811.90 and the silica supplied by different supplier is used inter -exchangeable in the process without any change. To support his contention the ld. Counsel submitted that "Flow Aid Silica Polymer" and "PPT Silica" both are same as certified by the production manager and also relied on the decision of the Tribunal. ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:

(2.) KAMAKHYA Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut where the declaration was filed and larger bench denied and matter kept for re -examination. Ld. Counsel also relied on Rule 57G(ii). This shows that credit under Sub -rule 2 was not denied on the ground that:

(3.) MONNET Industries Ltd v. CCE, Meerut 2003 (58) RLT 39(CEGAT -Del) page -39. This indicates that modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground of declaration given not specific restriction of capital goods.