9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c colour concentrate (master batches), having opted for the MODVAT by filing a requisite declaration vide Rule 57G of the Rules, on 17-3-1986, were alleged to have taken credit of Rs. 726/- towards the duty paid on the input Aluminium powder on 18-3-1986 vide Entry No. 1, though the dated acknowledgement was allegedly obtained only on 20-3-1986 and though the said input was received on 17-3-1986 only under the Transport Receipt, which was not the document on the strength of which such a credit could be taken. The appellants were further found to have taken credit for countervailing duty of Rs. 8,760.18 paid on Artificial Vax an input, imported under Bill of Entry No. 2386 dated 18-9-1987, through CVD paid was only Rs, 7,640.18 and that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e credit is denied. 4. Considering the submissions made, and perusing the record made available, and taking up first the demand in relation to Rs. 726/- the appellants have brought on record, the copy of the declaration filed by them. The said declaration is dated 17-3-1986 and bears the dated acknowledgement of 18-3-1986. This has not been controverted by the department. Even the adjudicating authority has not in his final conclusion, disbelieved this particular contention of the appellant. It has, therefore, to be accepted that acknowledgement on the declaration vide Rule 57G was duly obtained on 18-3-1986. The rejection of the credit however is on the ground of the goods having been received only under Transport Receipt, a document not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the Bill of Entry produced, it is dear that CVD paid is Rs. 8,460.18 whereas the credit taken is Rs. 8,760.18. Thus the credit taken is of the amount more than the duty paid. The excess of Rs. 300/- is nowhere explained, and the appellants are liable to refund of the said amount. 5.3 For the balance of the amount, the credit is denied because of non-compliance with the requirement of Public Trade Notice No. 41/87. Reading of the said Trade Notice indicates that it is confined, to only such of the cases as have been enumerated thereunder and the exigencies mentioned thereunder relate to importer supplying the imported items to he, manufacturers. No mention is made about the procedure to be followed, when the importers themselves ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
