1996 (9) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ataramani, Member (T)]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-9-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in which the Commissioner has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur confirming the demand of Rs. 1,13,895.71 on the ground that the appellant have wrongly availed of Modvat credit on Aluminium foils w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Presently the department has denied the Modvat for the reasons that the aluminium foil sheet has not been specifically declared as input. The learned Chartered Accountant referred to their various declarations from 1987 wherein they had declared packets of aluminium foil board as an input. The learned Chartered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the submissions. We find in their declarations submitted to the department on 15-7-1987, 30-7-1987 and 1-5-1987 that they have declared input packets 275 gms aluminium foil board. Admittedly these are made into tucks by their job workers and their finished product is a packet and blades are packed therein. That the aluminium sheets itself eligible for Modvat credit has been decided in their favo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X