Pawan Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....excise tarrif. she stated that "rubber chemicals" are of different types and they are available in the market under different brand names of the manufacturers. she stated that on this account the appellants had specifically listed 8 different rubber chemicals under general description "rubber processing chemicals". she contended that the "rubber chemicals" being of innumerable varieties and trade names it was not practicable for the appellants to list all such chemicals in the declaration. she contended that under these circumstances the dispiuted rubber chemicals should be deemed as covered by the general description "rubber chemicals" in the declaration filed under rule 57 by the appellants. she stated that there was no dispute regarding duty paid character and the disputed inputs and their actual use in the manufacture of final product. she contended that under these circumstances the impugned order passed on too technical an interpretation of the relevant rule may be set aside. in support of her contention she placed reliance on the following case law :-cce v. rama krishna steel industries 3. on behalf of the revenue shri b.d. bhagat, ld. jdr reiterated the findings of the.....

Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 3-7-1990 passed by the Additional Collector in which it has been held that the appellants were not entitled to Modvat credit in respect of Rubber Chemicals namely, "Pilflex -13" and "Pilnex TDQ" used as inputs since in the declaration filed under Rule 57G in respect of certain chemicals under the heading "Rubber Chemicals" the appellants had failed to specificially mention these chemicals.

2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, ld.Advocate submitted that in the declartion filed under Rule 57G the appellants declared "Rubber Processing Chemicals" falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tarrif. She stated that "Rubber Chemicals" are of different types and they are available in the market under different brand names of the manufacturers. She stated that on this account the appellants had specifically listed 8 different Rubber Chemicals under General description "Rubber Processing Chemicals". She contended that the "Rubber Chemicals" being of innumerable varieties and trade names it was not practicable for the appellants to list all such chemicals in the declaration. She contended that under these circumstances the dispiuted Rubber Chemicals should be deemed as covered by the general description "Rubber Chemicals" in the declaration filed under Rule 57 by the appellants. She stated that there was no dispute regarding duty paid character and the disputed inputs and their actual use in the manufacture of final product. She contended that under these circumstances the impugned order passed on too technical an interpretation of the relevant rule may be set aside. In support of her contention she placed reliance on the following case law :-CCE v. Rama Krishna Steel Industries 3. On behalf of the Revenue Shri B.D. Bhagat, ld. JDR reiterated the findings of the Additional Collector in the impugned order.

4. I have examined the records of the case and considered the submission made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that in the declaration filed under Rule 57G under the heading 'Description of inputs and their tariff classification' the appellants had declared the following at Sr. No. 5 :-"5. Rubber Processing Heading No. Sub-head- Chemicals ing No.(i) CBC 38.12 3812.00(ii) MOR 38.12 3812.00(iii) B. Rod 38.12 3812.00(iv) 4010-NA 38.12 3812.00(v) Vulca-for F/Peuia for F 38.12 3812.00(vi) T.M.T. 38.12 3812.00(vii) Renacit-7 38.23 3823.00(viii)FVI-50 29.42 2942.00 The appellants have contended that even though "Pilfex-13" and "Pilnex-TDQ" used by them as inputs were not specifically mentioned in the declaration, these items being rubber chemicals should be deemed to be covered by the item declared against Sr. No. 5 in the declaration which was in respect of all rubber chemicals. They have also contended that it was not possible for them to mention specificially in the declaration all the rubber chemicals required by them for use as inputs since rubber chemicals are of innumerable varieties and they are sold under various trade names of different manufacturers. They have pleaded that the disputed inputs being "Rubber Chemicals" and there being no dispute regarding their duty paid character or their use in the manufacture of the final product they should be deemed as covered by general description "Rubber Processing Chemicals" in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G.5. It is seen that in the declaration filed under Rule 57G the appellants had under the general heading of "Rubber Processing Chemicals" specifically listed 8 different "Rubber Chemicals". Since a very large number of "Rubber Chemicals are used in the tyre and rubber industry and some of these chemicals are sold by manufacturers under their respective trade names, I am inclined to agree with the appellants that it was not practicable for them to specificially mention all such chemicals required by them as inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. It is also seen that there is no dispute regarding the use of "Pilfex-13" and "Pilnex-TDQ" as Rubber Chemicals by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product or the duty paid character of these inputs. Under these circumstances I am inclined to agree with the appellants that in such situation too narrow an interpretation of Rule 57G has to be avoided and the Rubber Chemicals in question can be deemed as covered by the declaration in respect of Rubber Chemicals filed under Rule 57G by the appellants.

6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.