Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-9-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in which the Commissioner has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur confirming the demand of Rs. 1,13,895.71 on the ground that the appellant have wrongly availed of Modvat credit on Aluminium foils without declaring it as input in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G. The learned Chartered Accountant Shri S. Madhavan for the appellant submitted that in this case they are manufacturing Shaving razor blades for which they have obtaining aluminium foil board sheet. They are sending this to their job workers who return it to them as tucks which are packages to contain 5 razor blades. These printed aluminium foil sheets have their brand name 7 O'clock. The department had initially denied Modvat thereon holding that these are not used in the manufacture of final product and not being an input for the purposes. This ground taken by the department has since been set aside by an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had been upheld by the Tribunal as reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 747 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Presently the department has denied the Modvat for the reasons that the aluminium foil sheet has not been specifically declared as input. The learned Chartered Accountant referred to their various declarations from 1987 wherein they had declared packets of aluminium foil board as an input. The learned Chartered Accountant submitted that this is sufficient declaration for the purposes of availing Modvat and in support of this contention cited Tribunal's decision reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292 (Tribunal) in the case of Madras Fabricators v. Collector of Central Excise wherein the Tribunal held that declaration for the input lacquered tin sheets can be construed to cover plain tin sheets also. Shri Satnam Singh, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the appellant herein ought to have filed specific declaration indicating aluminium foil as an input. The declaration already recorded is for the packets. This requirement they ought to have fulfilled even for availing Modvat on the foil sheets pursuant to a favourable order for the appellant authority.
2. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find in their declarations submitted to the department on 15-7-1987,30-7-1987 and 1-5-1987 that they have declared input packets 275 gms aluminium foil board. Admittedly these are made into tucks by their job workers and their finished product is a packet and blades are packed therein. That the aluminium sheets itself eligible for Modvat credit has been decided in their favour by the Tribunal order cited supra. In these circumstances, the denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the aluminium foil sheets should have been specifically declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G would be a denial of the credit on a technical ground which should not be fatal to the availing of Modvat credit, having regard to the fact that there is no dispute about the duty paid nature of the goods and of use as tucks for packing the blades which is the final product manufactured by the appellant. The case law cited by the appellant in this regard relating to lacquered tin sheets Supra also supported their claim as that decision of the Tribunal has also been given in regard to declaration of input in similar circumstances. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.