Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 8,158.50 (rupees eight thousand one hundred fifty eight & fifty paisa) and penalty amount of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. The said demand has been confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of modvat credit on the alleged ground that the goods in question have not been declared by them in their declaration. Explaining the circumstances Shri Chattopadhyay submits that in the modvatable documents the goods have been described under their brand name whereas in the declaration the same have been declared as lubricants. There is no dispute that the goods received by them are also lubricants, but only their brand name has been given in the invoices. He submits that admittedly the lubricants as declared by them and the goods as described in the invoice are classifiable under same tariff heading 2710.90. In these circumstances there was no justification for the authorities below to reject the appellants' claim as regards modvat.
2. After hearing Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR I fully agree with the above submission of the ld. adv.. Both the items, as declared and as received by the appellants are lubricating oils classifiable under the same tariff heading. The mere fact that supplier of the same has described in the invoice by their brand name will not result in denial of modvat credit the appellants on that ground. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
Dictated in the court.