ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. M/s. P. G. Conductors have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector and rejected the appeal. The Asstt. Collector in his order held “In view of the above discussion and findings, I order that the credit of Rs. 60,389.58 availed in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of undeclared final product – Bare Aluminium Wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more should be debited under Rule 57-I in RG-23A Pt. II or in PLA within 10 days of the receipt of this order.”
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a declaration under Rule 57G on 14-3-1986 in which they did not declare bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more as their final product. However they availed a credit of Rs. 60,389.58 on 22.471 MTs of inputs namely aluminium wire rods. As the appellant could not satisfactorily explain, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, the appellant submitted that the modvat scheme was quite new; that they were not conversant about the declaration; that in view of this ignorance, bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more could not be included; that in their Classification List submitted on 2-4-1986 they had mentioned bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more; that in their declaration filed on 13-8-1986 they had declared bare aluminium wire as the final product; that non-filing of the declaration was a technical lapse; that their substantive right of availing modvat credit should not be denied to them.
3. When the matter was called, Shri R.P. Sharma, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that it was the beginning of the modvat scheme; that they were not fully conversant with the formalities; that there was no proforma prescribed for the declaration; that they did not mention the name of intermediaries namely bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more; that the appellant mentioned aluminium ingots, aluminium wire rods and bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more as some of the inputs; that the Hon’ble Tribunal held that if inputs to be used in the finished product manufactured by an assessee are clearly spelt out in a letter, rejecting the letter outright as not a declaration appears to be rigid and narrow view of the matter; that the appellant had filed a letter on 17-3-1986; that in that letter the appellant mentioned the inputs used in the manufacture of AAC and ACSR conductors; that the department was fully aware of the finished product as well as the inputs used in respect of the finished product. The ld. Advocate for the appellant prayed that the orders of the Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector disallowing modvat credit of Rs. 60,389.58 may kindly be set aside.
4. Shri B.D. Bhagat, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent submitted that appropriate declaration in respect of aluminium bare wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more was not filed; that filing of declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory; that non-filing of the declaration is not a technical lapse or a procedural formality; that the case cited by the appellant about outright rejection of filing the declaration in the form of a letter is not relevant to the present case as the facts in the two cases are different. Reiterating the findings of the lower authorities, the ld. JDR prayed that the appeal may be rejected.
5. Heard the submissions made by both sides and considered them. It has been fairly admitted by the appellant that bare aluminium wire of thickness 3.25 mm or more was not declared by them as a finished product. The appellant has submitted that this mistake occurred because it was the beginning of the modvat scheme and because that there was no proforma prescribed for filing the declaration and also that it was just a technical lapse, because the department was aware of the entire procedure of manufacture of all Aluminium conductors and Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced. However, the basic fact that remains to be determined is whether filing of declara-tiorvunder Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules was a substantive requirement or a technical requirement. For determining whether the requirement is substantive or technical in nature, let me reproduce the essential features of the Rule : “Rule 57G : Prodedure to be observed by the manufacturer: (1) Every manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A shall file a declaration with the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, indicating the description of the final products manufactured in his factory and the inputs intended to be used in each of the said final products and such other information as the said Asstt. Collector may require and obtain a dated acknowledgment of the said declaration.” On examination of the essential ingredients of this Rule, I find that the rule does not only say that a declaration may be filed but lays down ‘shall file a declaration. The rule also prescribed ‘obtain a dated acknowledgment of the said declaration.’ From these two requirements of the rule it may very clearly be said that the requirement of the rule is not just a technical formality or a procedural requirement but the use of the words in the rule clearly brings out that modvat credit can be taken only after filing the declaration and obtaining acknowledgment thereof. Thus the requirement of the rule is substantive and not procedural or a technical one. As this requirement of the rule admittedly was not complied with by the appellant, I hold that the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Asstt. Collector is sustainable in law. Having regard to this finding I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal accordingly.