9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-127/KOL/2010 - Dated:- 17-2-2010 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and S.K. Gaule, Member (T) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Gaule, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned Order whereby the ld. Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the credit amounting to Rs. 30,59,169.00 as under :- (i) The Credit of Rs. 9,73,133.00 taken in respect of Sl. Nos. 167 243 of the table attached to the impugned Adjudication Order. (ii) The Credit of Rs. 16,68,159.00 taken in respect of Sl. Nos. 4, 8, 9 133 of the table attached to the impugned Adjudication Order. (iii) The Credit of Rs. 4,17,577.00 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n used in the slabbing mill and hot strip mill. It was declared as cast articles under Heading 73.25. Sl. No. 52 relates to tools and tackles which are declared under Chapter 82. Sl. No. 117(1) relates to repair kit which consists of various rubber items under Chapter 40 which was declared in declaration dated 1-5-1996. Sl. No. 117(2) relates to tools and tackles which were declared under Chapter 82. The contention of the Appellant is that Sl. No. 159 was shown under wrong Chapter Heading. The actual classification as per the relevant invoices is 8504.00 and was declared in declaration dated 1-5-1996, vide Sl. Nos. 495, 503, 504 and 626 of the said declaration. The contention of the Appellant is also that the credit in any case was deniabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt contended that there was no proper declaration. 4(iv). In respect of 2(iv) (supra), the Respondent contended that the impugned goods are not capital goods. 5(i). In respect of 2(i) (supra), we find that the Certificates A issued in the case, are covered by relevant invoices. The ratio in the case of Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. (cited supra), is also applicable to the Appellant's case. 5(ii). In respect of 2(ii) (supra), we find that the Appellant was permitted to maintain PLA within seven days of raising the invoice, which is also clear from the show cause notice. The Board vide its Circular No. 441/7/99-C.X. dated 23-2-1999, clarified that show cause notices are not issued for procedural lapses. 5(iii). In respect of 2(iii) (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
