9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents. [Order per : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, bearing No. GSM 1314/89-BRD dated 20-6-1989, rejecting the appellants' appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case for purpose of disposal of the appeal are that - the appellants are manufacturers of spring assemblies. They had furnished a declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the order of the Asstt. Collector and rejected the appeal of the appellants. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order. 3. Shri Christian, the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants, took us through the modvat declaration given by the appellants to show that the full and detailed description of their only input has been given. He also produced the true copies of the Gate passes s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f show cause notice requesting for the amendment of modvat declaration to include the Tariff Item No. 7209.20 also in respect of same inputs. Notwithstanding this factual position, modvat benefit has been denied and demand has been confirmed overlooking the fact that part of the demand is time-barred. The penalty has also been imposed, which is totally unjustified. 4. Shri Arya on the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder a different Tariff heading, that does not make the Modvat declaration filed by the appellants as incorrect so long as the proper description of the input materials has been correctly given in the declaration. Moreover, the argument of Shri Christian is that in both the cases the rate of duty remains the same. Hence, no mala fide can be attributed warranting imposition of penalty. In our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
