Judgment:
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 132/97, dated 16-4-1997 denying Modvat credit in respect of the input of "Phosphorous bronze strips" which was utilised for the manufacture of final product Telecommunication products. The appellant had taken credit in respect of 12 invoices to an extent of Rs. 1,09,209.31 /- which has been denied on the ground that "Phosphorous bronze strips" in particular has not been declared in their declaration dated 13-12-1989, but what has been declared at S. No. 11 of the declaration is only "Phosphorous bronze" under Heading 7403. The appellant had filed a fresh declaration on 6-8-1993 specifically declaring "Phosphorous bronze strips" as falling under sub-heading 7409.30. The other issue pertains to non grant of credit of Rs. 1,000/- in respect of Main distribution frame. The appellant does not want to contest on this issue and therefore the only ratio remaining for consideration is as to whether the declaration of the input Phosphorous bronze in declaration dated 13-12-1989 can be accepted for the input Phosphorous bronze strips both falling under Chapter 74, however they fall under different sub-heading. There is no dispute about the input Phosphorous bronze in various forms though falling under various sub-headings being utilised for the manufacture of final product Telecommunication products. The authorities below have taken a view that the subsequent declaration cannot be accepted for the 12 invoices on which Modvat credit was taken for the period April to July, 1993 as, during that relevant period there was no specific declaration for the item Phosphorous bronze strips which fall under the different sub-heading.
2. I have heard both sides of the matter and considered the submissions. I notice from the declaration of 13-12-1989 that the appellants had given a long list of components and raw materials which are to be utilised in the manufacture of final product Telecommunication products falling under Heading 85.70. On the main declaration, the column pertaining to description of inputs and its tariff, a classification has been filed in as "11 items" (List enclosed) and under the Column name and the inputs, that is, whether raw materials, component bearing material, catalyst solvent, etc., the particulars given are raw materials and components in the Annexure to the said declaration. The appellants had given the list of components and raw materials and the various Chapter and Heading number. S. No. 11 pertains to Phospher bronze and declared under 74.03. The contention taken is that this input is available in various forms and one of the form is strip although the various forms fall under various sub-headings. But however it is not material as for the purpose of manufacture of final product telecommunication products the input remains phospher bronze in any form. Therefore the declaration of Phosphorous bronze under Chapter 74 should suffice. However for clarification purpose, the subsequent declaration dated 6-8-1993 was also filed indicating Phosphorous bronze strip under 7409.30. The appellants took a stand that this is a mere clarificatory declaration but as the input Phosphorous bronze remains same therefore the earlier declaration ought to be accepted being general declaration. The authorities have not accepted the same and have given their respective reasonings. I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by the counsel and the appellants is required to be accepted for the reason that there is no dispute about Phosphorous bronze in any form being utilised as an input for the manufacture of telecommunication products. Therefore Phosphorous bronze as a general description under Chapter 74 and could refer to various forms in which it exists, merely not describing the various forms under which it is received is merely a technical and procedural lapse which has been subsequently amended by filing a detailed declaration to satisfy the authorities. I notice that so long as the final product is same and the input of general description is been used in all its forms, then there is no violation the rules and the declaration giving general description of Phospher bronze should be accepted in respect of various forms in which it exists and sub- heading is not material in this case. The Tribunal in a large number of cases has taken a similar view. In the case of J.K.Industries as reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 335, the Tribunal noted that the issue had given general description of input namely "Rubber processing chemicals and others" and had not indicated retarder" used as a chemical for processing of rubber. The Tribunal accepted this general description and held that as retarder is the rubber processing chemical therefore specifically not mentioning retarder should not come in the way of granting the benefit of Modvat credit.
3. In the case of S. Subramanyan & Co. v. CCE as reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 547, the inputs were declared as "high tensile steel wire" instead of "black wire steel" and "stranlated wire" separately. The Tribunal accepted the declaration on the ground that it is not disputed that standard wire is also an eligible input for manufacture of final product. Even if it is not specifically mentioned in the declaration, it falls within the general description "H.T. steel wire" and hence the declaration should be accepted. In the case of K.B. Plascon (P) Ltd. v.CCE. as reported in 1997(90) E.L.T. 473, the trade name of input polyethylene was declared which was pilene ultra. The Tribunal held that mentioning trade name should not be the ground for denying the benefit. Likewise in the case of Swil Ltd. v. CCE. as reported in 1997 (20) RLT 70, the general description of copper and copper alloy wire had been given without any description of the cross sectional diameter and also of those falling under various sub-headings. The Tribunal held that the main input being described itself is sufficient declaration for all those sub-items as well. In the case of CCE v. Larsen and Toubro Limited as reported in 1997 (21) RLT 445, it was held that minor variations in description or tariff classification between inputs declared and those received should not be a ground for denial of Modvat credit. I notice that these judgments have a direct bearing with the present case and apply to the case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of non grant of Modvat on "Phosphorous bronze strips" to the extent of Rs. 1,09,209.31 and the appeal allowed is to that extent. However the order pertaining to dis-allowing the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,000/- in respect of Main distribution frame is confirmed as it is not contested. Appeal disposed of accordingly.