ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The Revenue had filed these two appeals against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 374-75/CE/CHD/94, dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Tyres of Moped & Bicycles falling under Chapter 40 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing the benefit of Modvat scheme. During the “month of April, 1993 Respondent took Modvat credit of Rs. 1,84,976.76 on the basis of duty demanded and paid by M/s. Bengal Chemotex, Karun Enterprises & M/s. Uttam Enterprises vide Order-in Original No. 1 to 3/CE/ADC/91. The respondent during the period January, 1994 took credit of Rs. 1,96,780/- on the basis of deposit of duty amounting of Rs. 1,91,780/- and Rs. 5,000/- as personal penalty demanded front M/s. Royal Enterprises, Ludhiana vide Order-in-Original 31/CE/90, dated 31-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Respondents also took Notional credit of Rs. 22,258/- during a month of March, 1993. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent and after adjudication the Dy. Collector of Central Excise disallow the Modvat credit and order the recovery of the same under Rule 51 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also imposed personal penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondent filed appeal and vide impugned order the appeal was allowed.
3. Shri V. Sethi, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Respondent took credit on the basis of duty and personal penalty paid by the manufacture. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that duty has been paid by the Respondent. He further submitted that Respondents have not filed declaration in respect of the inputs Bead Wire Rings. He relied upon the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, that the Respondents has not declared this input in the declaration dated 1-7-1992 filed by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority also came to the conclusion that the duty was deposited by the manufacturer of these inputs from their own accounts. He further submitted that there is no evidence that the goods in question were received by the appellants and (respondents) they were actually used in the manufacture of final product. He, therefore prays that the appeals be allowed.
4. Ms. Ginny Bedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order specifically held that there is no denying of the fact that duty was paid, therefore when the duty was paid on an input the Respondents are eligible for taking Modvat credit in respect of the duty. She further, submitted that the ld. Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order also gave the specific finding that inputs were declared in the declaration. She submits that the duty was paid by the Respondent, therefore, the Respondents are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit. She, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides. In these appeals the Respondents took Modvat credit in respect of duty paid by M/s. Bengal Chemotex, Karun Enterprises & M/s. Uttam Enterprises, and Royal Enterprises who were the supplier of the input Bead Wire Ring. The manufacturers paid duty and M/s. Royal Enterprises also paid personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- in persuance of various order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authorities. The Dy. Collector of Central Excise in the Order-in-Original gave a specific finding that the Respondents had not declared the input in question in their Modvat declaration dated 1-7-1992 filed with the competent authority. He also gave a specific finding that a duty in question was deposited by the manufacturers from their own account and no duty has been deposited by the present respondent. Therefore, present Respondent’s claim that they had deposited the duty which was rejected. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order held that the inputs are declared in the declaration filed by the present Respondent. There is nothing mentioned in the impugned order regarding date of declaration filed by the present respondent. The ld. Collector of appeals in the impugned order held that there is no denying of the fact that duty was paid. The manufacturer of the inputs paid the duty in persuance of the various orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and there is specific finding by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise that manufacturer have paid duty from their own account and the present Respondent had not declared the input in their declaration dated 1-7-1992. These facts were not discussed in the impugned order by the Collector of Central Excise while allowing the appeal. In these circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh for decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the Respondents. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.