Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kaylites Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

1. the respondent to this appeal filed a declaration under rule 57g.this declaration indicated the final product to be lighting, fitting and parts thereof. following a notice issued to the assessee, the asstt. collector held that the declaration was not valid for the reason that details of the final product had not been given and confirmed the proposal in the notice to disallow the credit already taken. on appeal from this order, the collector (appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that failure to describe the final product in terms of the particular brand or trade name would not justify denying the credit and set aside the asstt. collector's order. hence appeal by the department.2. the ground in the appeal that failure to describe the final product is not condonable offence is irrelevant to the facts of this case.there is no denial that the final product has been correctly described by the assessee. the contention of the assessee, noted by the collector (appeals), that the classification list itself described the goods in terms identical to those described in the rule 57g i.e. lighting, fitting and parts thereof and that this list has been approved is significant. if the description was good enough for classification, i fail to see why it was not enough for the purpose of modvat credit.there is no requirement in law that it should be in terms of brand name or trade name. i therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.