ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. After having examined the records and heard both sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and take up the appeal for disposal.
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,985/- on Brass Gutka (input) to the appellants for the period July to September, 1996 and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Mod-vat credit has been denied on the ground that the inputs were not correctly declared under Rule 57G.
3. Ld. Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand submits that the item was covered by the description “Copper & Brass sheets, strips and parts” given in the declaration filed by the appellants on 13-4-94. The lower appellate authority has wrongly rejected the appellant’s plea that Brass Gutka was covered by the description “Brass parts” given in the said declaration dated 13-4-94. Ld. Counsel further submits that the denial of the credit on the ground of non-declaration of inputs is not sustainable in the light of the decision of this Tribunal’s Larger Bench in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (Tribunal-LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 575 (CEGAT-L.B.)]. He further submits that there is no justifiable ground for the penalty imposed on the as-sessee inasmuch as they had voluntarily disclosed all material facts to the Department by filing RT-12 returns accompanied by modvatable invoices and other documents. He prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
4. Ld. JDR, Shri Hitesh Shah reiterates the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I have examined the submissions. 1 note that the appellants had declared the input in question as “brass parts” in their declaration dated 13-4-94 filed under Rule 57G. The credit was taken only subsequently. The authorities below did not accept the description “Brass parts” as correct declaration of Brass Gutka. A Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the cited case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. (supra) considered a similar question and decided thereon in the light of Board’s Circular dated 23-2-99 and Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-99. The Notification had amended Rule 57G by providing that credit under sub-rule (2) of the Rule should not be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under Sub-rule (1) did not contain all the details required to be contained therein. Though the period of dispute involved in the case before the Larger Bench was prior to 1999, the Bench re-
manded to the adjudicating authority the question whether Modvat credit on inputs was admissible to the assessee in the light of the amended provisions of Rule 57G read with the Board’s Circular dated 23-2-99. In other words, the amended provisions of Rule 57G were applied retrospectively. This could very well be done in the instant case as well. The only ground for denial of credit on Brass Gutka in the present case is non-declaration of the input. The input was admittedly declared as “Brass parts” but the same has not been accepted by the authorities below. According to the amended provisions of Rule 57G, even if the declaration under Sub-rule (1) does not contain all the details required to be contained therein, Modvat credit shall not be denied. In view of this provision, the denial of Modvat credit to the present assessee on Brass Gutka on the ground that the item was not covered by the declaration “Brass parts” cannot be sustained. Therefore, following the Larger Bench view, I set aside the decision of the lower appellate authority in relation to Modvat credit on Brass Gutka and allow this appeal.