ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had correctly taken Modvat credit on the Retarder used by it in the processing of Rubber. The appellant filed a declaration, as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules on 8th March, 1986. In this declaration, it listed a large number of items specifically but retarder is not included in the specific list. The specific items were headed by a mere general declaration “Rubber processing chemicals and others”, shown to be falling under Chapters 38 and 39. The credit was taken on the retarder on 21st August, 1986. Subsequently the appellant filed specific declaration for the product on 22nd August, 1986.
2. The Addl. Collector of Central Excise has held that credit was not correctly taken and disallowed the credit on the ground that when it was taken the product had not specifically figured in the 57G declaration.
3. It is the argument of Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate, for the appellant that the commodity is a rubber processing chemical and is therefore, covered by the mere general description at S. No. 4 of the declaration, even though, it might not have figured by name or functional description more specifically. He cites case law in support. Shri Ramesh also emphasises that the declaration was filed in the very early days of introduction of Modvat before procedures had crystallised due to clarification with regard to procedures. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, DR supports the order of Addl. Collector saying that product has not been specifically mentioned and credit was not available.
4. There is no denial that the item is a rubber processing chemical, therefore, would be covered by the description in S. No. 4 of the declaration. The reliance was placed on West Regional Bench’s decision in the case of Eagle Spring India v. CCE – [1991 (53) E.L.T. 103] and more specifically on the decision in the case of Pawan Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh – [1994 (73) E.L.T. 212]. In the later decision, the Bench had allowed credit on the rubber chemical was not described by name, although a more general description was given. It would be also unrealistic to disregard the fact that description was filed before procedural requirement relating to Modvat credit has been crystalised. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal.