ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 9/12-6-1995.
2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of machinery for paper and paper board making. They had filed a Modvat declaration regarding their inputs and this declaration included an item described as ‘Wire Cloth for Cylinder Mould (cloth including endless bands of iron & steel)’ as evident from a copy of the declaration filed at page 2.
3. They had subsequently placed a purchase order on a foreign firm for supply of the same vide purchase order No. BECL/IMP/90-91/365A, dated 18th July, 1990 a copy of which has been filed at page 34 and shows the item at Sr.No. II.
4. The foreign suppliers sent the item but described the same in the invoice and the bill of entry as ‘Bottom Synthetic Shrink Sleeves’ under the major heading ‘components for paper/paper board making machinery’.
5. The authorities below have denied the benefit of the Modvat credit taken on the ground that the item was not the same which had been declared as input.
6. It was, however, their contention that what was required was a clothing for cylinder mould of the required specifications as indicated in their purchase order and earlier it used to be made of steel wires but due to technological advancement in Germany, they could make the same from a synthetic material. Hence, the foreign supplier sent them clothing for cylinder mould of synthetic material. That was the only difference between the declaration and the purchase order on one hand and the goods actually received on the other. It was their contention that what is popularly known in the market as wire cloth for cylinder mould is also known as ‘Bottom synthetic shrink sleeves’, the term used by the foreign supplier in the invoice and bill of entry as evident from a certificate issued by Chemprolects Design and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. placed at page (sic).
7. In response to further queries of the Bench, learned counsel stated that there is no dispute that the item was required and actually used as an input and both the input and output had been declared and were covered by Modvat scheme. The only question is that in view of the material of which wire clothing of cylinder mould clothing was made whether Modvat could be denied on the ground that the details of the description given in the declaration were different.
8. In respect of his contention that such difference in declaration should not come in the way of Modvat, he would like to cite Tribunal’s order in the case of Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal). In fact, a more broader view had been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Triton Valves Ltd. reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289 (Tribunal). He would, therefore, pray that their appeal may be accepted.
9. Learned DR drew attention to the order-in-original and order-in-ap-peal and reiterated the department’s view saying that the description given in the Modvat declaration and the description in the bill of entry do not tally. Therefore, the department was justified in demanding the amount in question.
10. It was his contention that merely a broad description of the inputs was not sufficient as held by the Tribunal in the case of Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 28 (Tribunal).
11. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that in the Modvat declaration given under Rule 57A, the appellants have declared wire cloth for cylinder mould. What has, however, been imported and used is a synthetic cloth for cylinder mould. The purchase order dated 18th July, 1990 shown by the learned counsel also described it as ‘wire clothing for cylinder mould’. The description of invoice and bill of entry is ‘Bottom synthetic shrink sleeve’. However, the learned counsel is correct in pointing out that what is popularly known in India as ‘wire clothing for cylinder mould’ is technically known abroad as ‘Bottom synthetic shrink sleeves’ as evident from a certificate of experts cited by him. I also notice that even the technical details regarding the item as given in the purchase order and as shown in the invoice are the same inasmuch as both mention No. 4/4/CM Plain Weave with Woven scan T-8-3855×2840 net and the invoice refers to the purchase order indicating the same number and date.
12. I also notice that there is no dispute that such inputs and outputs both were covered by Modvat scheme and the item concerned was actually used for the above purpose. In these circumstances, the fact that the declared item was described as wire clothing for cylinder mould whereas what has been received has been described as synthetic clothing for cylinder mould does not make any difference to the eligibility of the item to Modvat. The principle which the Tribunal is consistently following is that the description should be sufficient for the purpose for which declaration is made. The Tribunal’s order cited by the learned DR in the case of Aluminium Industries (supra) only dis-al-lows that declaration which was very broad and did not serve the purpose. The order of the WRB of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel shows that where the name was Mafron gas instead of Freon gas declared for Modvat purposes, it did not make any difference since both belonged to the same family and were assessed to duty as refrigerant gas. Hence, it was held that Mafron gas was also eligible to the Modvat unless it is proved that it was used for some other purposes. The SRB of the Tribunal in the case of Triton Valves Ltd. (supra) has taken an even broader view. It has also been repeatedly held that what is required to be seen in these situations is that whether there is substantive compliance with the provisions.
13. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal.