ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. The appellants are ag-grived by the Order-in-Appeal No. 364-CE/DLH/91, dated 3-4-1994 under which through common Order Collector (Appeals) has unheld Asstt. Collector’s Orders disallowing Modvat credit on account of inputs not having been declared.
2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Auto-components for two wheelers and Electric Apparatus components falling under Chapter subheading 8714.00 and 8538.00 respectively.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that they had filed a declaration in 1986 and declared their inputs among others as pipes. They have been denied Modvat credit on the ground that they actually brought Cold Rolled Steel Tubes. The learned Advocate submitted that at the time they filed the declaration such pipes were classifiable under heading 73.03 and their declaration was for steel rods and pipes, bars classifiable under 72.09 and 73.03. Citing from Collins English New Dictionary, he said that Pipes and tubes are interchangeable words and pipe is referred to as a tube of metal or other material and tube is referred to as pipe. This would indicate that tubes and pipes are the same things. In support of his contention he cited the case of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CCE – reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 165 (SC). He also refers to advertisement issued by Kalyani Steels Seamless Pipes Project appearing at page 24 of the paper book which indicates that pipes have been at many places referred to as tubes through expression like “The pipes (tubes) ….” He submitted that mere technicalities cannot have the effect of denying the Modvat when it is not alleged that what they had brought were goods of description totally different from what they had declared and when otherwise they are eligible for Modvat.
4. Learned DR reiterated the Department’s arguments and submitted that the appellants ought to have mentioned tubes specifically.
5. I have heard both sides. Rule 57G requires manufacturers intending to take credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A to file a declaration indicating the description of the final product manufactured in this factory and inputs intended to be used…What the declaration therefore requires is a description of inputs to be used and the description of the final products to be manufactured.
6. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines description as “The action of setting forth in words by mentioning characteristics; the combination of qualities or features that marks out or describes a particular class”.
7. The tube is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as “a hollow body, usually cylindrical and long in proportion to its diameter, of wood, metal, glass etc. used to convey or contain a liquid or for other purposes; a pipe; a canal, duct, passage or pipe.”
Pipe is defined in this dictionary as “cylindrical tube or stick for other purposes; a hollow cylinder of wood, metal etc. for conveyance of gas vapour; a tube;”
8. It would be clear from this that words pipes and tubes are interchangeable and often one is defined or described with reference to the other. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Metals and Ferroy Alloys Ltd. (supra) referred to pipes or tubes with reference to poles and observed that “The ultimate product in the present case is merely a set of pipes or tubes of different diameters attached to one another by different methods.” (Para 12) The advertisement appearing at page 24 of the paper book has this to say” “The Company is now setting up a project for the manufacture of 60,000 TPA of Seamless (Carbon & Alloy Steel) Pipes. The pipes (Tubes) would have dimensions varying from 45 mm to 245 mm dia…”. This would also indicate that in common parlance tubes and pipes are expressions conveying broadly the same meaning. In this context it cannot be said that inputs which are steel tubes but described as pipes had not been declared.
9. A declaration under Rule 57G is not a Classification list requiring placement of an item under relevant sub-heading, heading, Chapter of tariff read with Chapter Notes and section Notes and Rules of Interpretation. It is a declaration which enables the Department to identify inputs and finished products with a view to determine their eligibility to Modvat in terms of Rule 57A. In case of CCE v. Triton Valves Ltd. reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289 (T) it was held that non-declaration of copper wire rods only a procedural irregularity and benefit could not be denied. In this case, considering that in common parlance tubes and pipes are generally described and understood as one for the other it cannot be said that inputs had not been declared. I therefore allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order.