Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Roto Inks (P) Ltd.

1. in the order impugned in this appeal the commissioner (appeals) has held that the failure by the assessee to include the correct classification in the modvat declaration of the inputs did not disqualify it from taking credit.2. i have heard the departmental representative. the respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. i do not question the averments in the department's appeal that the inputs must be specifically mentioned in the declaration under rule 57g. however, the two notices to show cause which were issued to assessee do not propose this. the show cause notices are themselves in a standard stereo typed form. the annexure-a to each of these notices, which alleges specific charges, indicates that the classification of the inputs, which were shown in the 57g declaration, is different from the declaration in the gate passes. from this it will be clear that the input themselves had been declared in the 57g declaration. the question then is not the one of failure to declare the inputs, but to declare the tariff heading which tally with the heading shown in the declaration and in the gate passes.4. this should alone be sufficient to dispose of the appeal. further there are decisions of this tribunal to the effect that since classification is not always uniform there may be difference in classification of the same product from area to area, and therefore the fact of the input being classified differently in the gate pass from its classification in the 57g declaration should not result in modvat credit being denied. the description of the commodity had been given and there is no dispute that this was incorrect.