Full Judgment
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a unit of State Electricity Board and are engaged in the manufacture of articles of lead, articles of iron and steel and electrical apparatus are working under the Modvat Scheme. The appellant received an order with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. for purchase of aluminium strips. The Hindalco will supply the aluminium strips mentioned in the invoices as extrusion bars and rods and appellant availed the credit on the strength of these invoices. The credit was denied on the ground that no declaration was filed by the appellant in respect of extrusion bars and rods.
3. The contention of the appellant is that they had placed an order for supply of aluminium strips size 20X6 mm confirming to IS: 50.
Subsequently, the appellant also increased the quantity and in this communication also the appellants are asking for aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm. In spite of this in the invoices, M/s Hindalco mentioned the goods extrusion bars and rods. The contention is that in the invoices Contract No. 16/94 was mentioned whereby the appellant placed order for supply of aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm. The contention of the appellant is also that Rule 57G and T has been amended to the effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that if all the particulars are not mentioned in the document. The contention is that the appellant filed a declaration whereby the input mentioned as aluminium strip and order was placed for aluminum strips but in the duty payment document these are mentioned as rods. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575 whereby the Tribunal held that the amended provision of Rule 57G are applicable to the pending cases also.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods are extrusion bars and rods whereas the appellant filed a declaration in respect of strips, therefore, they are not entitled for the credit.
5. In this case, the appellant placed an order by entering into contract with M/s Hindalco Industries for supply of aluminium strips of 20x6 mm, the same quantity was supplied by M/s Hindalco Industries under the invoices whereby the same contract number was mentioned in the invoices, it is mentioned that the goods are extrusion bars and rods. As the goods are of aluminium and of the same size as per the contract, in the contract: appellant are describing as aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm whereas the supplier of the inputs are describing this rods and extrusions for the same size, further, I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (supra), after noticing the amendment by notification No. 7/99-CE dated 9.2.99 held that this amendment is applicable to pending cases also. The notification provides that the credit shall not be denied on the ground that the declaration under Sub-Rule (1) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein or manufacturer failed to comply with the other requirements under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57G of Central Excise rules. In the present case, the appellant filed a declaration describing the inputs aluminium strips and placed an order with M/s Hindalco Industries supply of aluminium strips of a particular size. The Revenue is not disputing the size of the goods received by the appellant. However, the supplier of the inputs mentioned the goods as extrusion bars and rods. There is no dispute regarding the size of the goods, receipt of the inputs in the factory and appellant also filed a declaration in respect of the aluminium strips hence the demand is not sustainable the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.