IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Ref. No. 15 of 2000 Date of decision: 11.08.2008 Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh-1 … Petitioner Versus M/s Malwa Fastners(P) Ltd. Parwnoo … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondent: Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta,J. (Oral) : This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities were right in allowing the credit in respect of inputs whose description was not declared by the party in modvat declaration under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?” The facts giving rise to this reference are that the petitioner utilized compacted plastic granules which it had received from M/s Flex Industries Ltd., NOIDA. These plastic granules were utilized by the assessee for manufacture of the end product. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The assessee claimed that the granules are covered under the definition of waste and scrap of plastics under entry 39.15 and claimed MODVAT Credit for the same. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the granules could not be treated to be waste and scrap of plastics. The assessee filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, relying upon two judgments of the Central Excise & Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) Chandigarh and Cochin Benches. The department aggrieved by the appellate order, challenged the same before the learned CEGAT. The learned CEGAT also rejected the appeal filed by the revenue. The main ground which weighed with the learned CEGAT while rejecting the appeal was that the goods were purchased by the assessee from M/s Flex Industries Ltd., NOIDA, the manufacturer of the plastic granules. The said manufacturer while dispatching the granules to the assessee had classified them as waste and scrap of plastics. This declaration made by the manufacturer who was consigner of the goods was accepted by the Central Excise Authorities. The learned Tribunal held that once the Central Excise Authorities had themselves, in the case of the consigner accepted the declaration that the compacted granules are covered under the item waste and scrap of plastic, the Excise Authorities themselves could not take a different view when the matter of the consignee assessee came before them. The reasoning of the learned Tribunal is absolutely correct. The Excise Department can itself not give two interpretations with regard to the same item. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the case. The question of law raised is decided against the revenue and in 3 favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 11, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge 4