9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th including endless bands of iron steel) as evident from a copy of the declaration filed at page 2. 3. They had subsequently placed a purchase order on a foreign firm for supply of the same vide purchase order No. BECL/IMP/90-91/365A, dated 18th July, 1990 a copy of which has been filed at page 34 and shows the item at Sr.No. II. 4. The foreign suppliers sent the item but described the same in the invoice and the bill of entry as `Bottom Synthetic Shrink Sleeves under the major heading `components for paper/paper board making machinery . 5. The authorities below have denied the benefit of the Modvat credit taken on the ground that the item was not the same which had been declared as input. 6. It was, however, their contention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roda reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal). In fact, a more broader view had been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Triton Valves Ltd. reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289 (Tribunal). He would, therefore, pray that their appeal may be accepted. 9. Learned DR drew attention to the order-in-original and order-in-appeal and reiterated the department s view saying that the description given in the Modvat declaration and the description in the bill of entry do not tally. Therefore, the department was justified in demanding the amount in question. 10. It was his contention that merely a broad description of the inputs was not sufficient as held by the Tribunal in the case of Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the item to Modvat. The principle which the Tribunal is consistently following is that the description should be sufficient for the purpose for which declaration is made. The Tribunal s order cited by the learned DR in the case of Aluminium Industries (supra) only dis-allows that declaration which was very broad and did not serve the purpose. The order of the WRB of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel shows that where the name was Mafron gas instead of Freon gas declared for Modvat purposes, it did not make any difference since both belonged to the same family and were assessed to duty as refrigerant gas. Hence, it was held that Mafron gas was also eligible to the Modvat un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
