Judgment:
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commr. (Appeals), Central Excise. In the impugned order, the Commr.
(Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and held that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit on the brass scrap though in the declaration, it was declared as copper scrap.
2. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant Commr. submitted that claiming under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the assessee is required to give the description of the inputs intended to be used in the manufacture of the final product. He submitted that correct and full description of the inputs is essential and not merely producing the tariff description. He submits that Section Note and Chapter Note are relevant for the classification of the rules under Central Excise Tariff and these notes are not in consideration while determining the benefit under Modvat scheme. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
3. Heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. In this case, the respondents filed Modvat declaration and in the declaration they declared the inputs as copper scrap and they have also given the Tariff Heading 74.04. They had taken the benefit of Modvat scheme on the brass scrap also. The appellants are also objecting in respect of the Modvat credit taken on brass scrap on the ground that it has not been declared in the declaration as inputs. The Commr.
(Appeals) in the impugned order held as under: "On going through the records of the case including the memo of appeals and submissions made at the time of personal hearing, I find that appellants do have a case. I agree with the contention of the appellants that copper waste and scraps would include brass waste and scraps which is nothing but an alloy of copper and zinc.
Moreover, is no separate entry for brass in the C.E. Tariff. Section Note 4 of Section XV of CET clearly says : 'Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in this schedule to a base metal includes a reference to alloys which by virtue of Note 3 are to be classified as alloys of that metal'. In view of the Section Note 4 when an alloy of copper is required to be classified in the heading of copper then there does not appear to be any reason not to accept their declaration under Rule 57G declaring copper waste and scrap as that of brass waste and scrap." 5. From the tariff heading, it is clear that no definition of brass scrap has been given. Section Note 4 provides that an alloy of copper is required to be classified in the heading of copper.
6. In the present case, the respondents have declared copper scrap and also given the tariff heading and the Section Note 4 provides that an alloy of copper is to be classified in the heading of copper.
In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.