Full Judgment
2. The common issue in all these 5 appeals is the eligibility as input of rejected final products returned to the Modvat user assessee. In all these cases the Commissioner accepted that rejected final goods could be brought back as inputs, but observed that the description of the inputs in the declaration does not match with the description of the final products. He observed that whereas inputs were Polycarbonate Resin, Polybutylene Terephthalate and Polyphenylene Oxide; the returned final products were Polycarbonate Plastics (in primary form), Polybutylene Terephthalate Plastics (in primary form), and Polyphenylene Oxide Plastics (in primary form). On this observation he declined the benefit to the assessees.
3. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian, the learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A. Ashokan the learned DR for the Revenue.
4. We observe that there are number of judgments where the Tribunal has held that when comparing the description of the inputs in the declaration and in the documents covering the inputs a certain degree of leniency has to be shown. In this regard Tribunal has observed that broad description should suffice. Thus where proper wires and rods were declared as inputs, aluminium bronze rods were accepted by the Tribunal to be covered by that description 1996 (83) E.L.T. 188. We find in the declaration that Tariff Heading of the main input as well as the finished products is the same. The Tribunal in a number of judgments have held that where the goods were falling under the same tariff heading there should be no difficulty in accepting the eligibility of the input. In this belief in their own case reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 592, the Polyphenylene ether and Polyphenylene Oxide were equated for the purpose of availment of Modvat. In several other judgments variations in sub-heading or tariff headings were also accepted as not hindering the availment. Where the declaration or the invoice give a brand name but where the other part gave the technical name, the availment of Modvat was held as permissible.
5. In the present case we find that the rejected final goods received back and the inputs fall under the same tariff sub-heading. The difference between the terms 'resin' and 'plastics' cannot be held to be fatal to the entitlement of the assessees.
6. At this stage we take cognizance of the submissions made by the learned DR. He submits that in terms of the declaration where 3 inputs are shown as going into the making of the rejected final goods, the rejected final goods being a compound could not be the same as the input shown at Serial No. 1. In our opinion the discussion and the citations made by us above should sufficient to clear this objection.
We thus find that the Commissioner was not correct in denying the availment of Modvat on this ground. His orders on this ground are set aside with directions for appropriate relief.
7. In appeal No. E/501 /98-Bom. the contest is made about the denial of Modvat credit on two substances namely DSPT and EBX wax. Learned Advocate submits that he is not pressing the admissibility of these two items. Therefore no orders are passed in their regard.