ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President
1. This is a Stay application filed against the Order of the Collector
2. The learned Counsel stated that this is a Modvat matter regarding which they had filed a declaration on 23.12.1986 mentioning the items as steel rods and pipes bars under tariff items 72.09 and 73.03.
2A. Subsequently, the tariff classification of pipes and tubes changed. However, as per their understanding they continued to take Modvat credit on steel tubes on the basis of duty paying documents.
3. The Asstt. Collector, however, denied the credit and confirmed the demand for Rs. 8,223.60 paise on the ground that there was no proper declaration regarding the same.
4. The learned Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the Asstt. Collector’s orders on the ground that no declaration has been filed during the relevant period regarding steel tubes.
5. It was their contention that there is no distinction between tubes and pipes and the declaration they had already filed was also valid although the tariff classification had changed.
6. The learned SDR stated that the declaration dated 23.12.1986 was only in respect of steel rods and pipes bars (and referred to tariff items 72.09 and 73.03) but subsequently the tariff classification changed and tubes and pipes were classifiable under different headings. Furthermore the tariff itself uses the terms tubes and pipes and the appellants at no stage had declared the inputs as steel tubes with the result that during the relevant period there was no declaration regarding the items in respect of which the benefit of Modvat had been availed.
7. Furthermore the amount involved is only a small sum.
8. The learned Counsel stated that the amount is small and there is no difficulty in depositing the same but there are other cases pending before the Adjudicating Authorities and/or Collector (Appeals) and involve larger sums and therefore he prays for the waiving of the pre-deposit of the amount in question.
9. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. I find that apparently steel tubes had not been declared and the question whether pipes and tubes were the same or were required to be considered as different products is a debatable point which could be considered appropriately only at the time of hearing of the main appeal. Furthermore admittedly the amount involved is very small and the appellants were in a position to deposit the same without any difficulty.
10. Moreover the Tribunal is not concerned at this stage with the matters which are not before us and are still pending for decision before the departmental authorities.
11. In the above circumstances there is no cause for stay at this stage. Hence the Stay application is dismissed.