9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending disposal of appeal today, in Stay Petition E/208/93. Appeals 2. Appeal No. E/230/93 is filed by the appellant M/s. India Tin Industries against the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore dated 13-1-1993. The other appeal, Appeal No. E/271/90 is filed by the Department and directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 1-1-1990. Both the appeals are taken up together as the issue is one and the same arising under the Modvat scheme. 3. Shri Sampath, the learned Counsel for the appellant in A. No. E/230/93 submitted that the period involved is from 1-3-1988 to 23-10-1989 and on grounds of irregular availment of Modvat credit proceedings were initiated against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or in the duty of the same or in the nature of inputs. The Department has taken the view that in the absence of a fresh declaration after the change in the tariff heading the availment of Modvat credit by the appellant should be construed to be irregular. 4. So far as painted lacquered sheets are concerned the appellant had declared the same as painted lacquered sheets under Tariff heading 7210.30 and in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the contention of the Department is that the appellant should have declared it as a final product. The learned Counsel contended that the appellant had filed the necessary declaration under Modvat scheme in terms of Rule 57G and had been admittedly availi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292 and the ruling of the West Regional Bench in the case of M/s. Khosla Cast Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 691. It was urged that so far as the printed sheets are concerned even in the tariff there is no separate heading at all either under 7212.30 or 7210.30. The learned Counsel further in this context referred to the clarification of the Board in circular No. 9/91-CX-4 dated 10-7-1991. It was urged that the Board has clearly clarified that the expression painted, lacquered, varnished or plastic coated sheets would also cover inter alia tinned sheets subjected to a process of printing and varnishing . This clarification of the Board has also been followed as is evidenced from the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 23-1-1989 and to say that it has not been found possible to accede to your request contained in point No. 1. As regards the issue raised in point No.2, it is clarified that Printed sheets would be covered by the entry pertaining to Painted/lacquered/varnished sheets . However, you are requested to give full details of the case of provisional assessment as reported by you for further consideration by the Board. As regards point No. 3 on the issue of exemption from duty on components captively consumed in the course of manufacture of exempted category of metal containers, it is stated that the matter is under consideration of the Board." The learned Counsel also contended that in any event in the light of the admitted factual positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id out of PLA more than Rs. 93,25,205.59 and likewise in respect of printed/lacquered sheets the appellant paid out of the PLA Rs. 18,63,947.50 in addition to what the appellant had utilised as Modvat credit. 5. Shri Subramanian, the learned D.R. submitted that even though there is no revenue implication in the present case, when there is a change of tariff heading inasmuch as the appellant filed a revised classification the appellant should have filed one more declaration under Rule 57G and adopted the reasoning of the adjudicating authority in other respects. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us and gone through the entire records. The short issue arising for our determination is as to whether the appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule or under the Modvat scheme or procedure and in the absence of any change in the duty with no revenue implication when the description of the goods continued to be the same, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of Modvat on the ground that the assessee has not filed another declaration after the change in the tariff heading. Apart from it we also take note of the fact that the Department was fully aware of the entire manufacturing activities of the appellant as disclosed in the detailed classification list, RT-12s, RG 23 Part-I and Part-II and also the input gate passes and in such a situation the show cause notice issued on 20-10-1992 is clearly barred by limitation. We are not able to agree with the finding of the learned ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
