Trumac Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

1. the appeal is against the order of the assistant collector confirmed by_ the collector (appeals) that the appellant not having declared specifically the inputs, was not entitled to take credit of the duty paid on that.2. appellant is absent. i have read the appeal papers and heard the departmental representative.3. it is not in dispute that what the appellant declared in may, 1986 was " machinery parts" whereas credit was taken on complete spike roll and spike latthice". it is also not in dispute that the goods in question were inputs for the final products manufactured by the appellant.4. in the normal course it might have to be held that in the absence of a more specific declaration, credit was not available. however the declaration was made on 26th march, 1986 within the same month as the modvat procedure came into force. there was considerable confusion and doubt both within the trade and the department, as to the exact nature for the declaration to be filed, and the information that such declaration ought to have incorporated. this has been recognised by the board itself in its letter f. no. 263/17/87-cx., dated 9-2-1988 has ordered that in view of the absence of clarity that prevailed in the early days of modvat credit should not be disallowed. i am of the view that the facts of this case is justifying application of the board's circular and that credit was rightly taken. the claim related to credit originally disallowed. it was initially disallowed but it resulted in the assessees paying the amount.