9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction indicating the description of the final product manufactured and the inputs intended to be used therein. Manufacuturer who has filed such a declaration may after obtaining the acknowledgement thereof take credit of duty paid on the inputs received by him. The issue in this case relates to the eligibility for Modvat credit in respect of copper wires falling under Sub-heading 7408.19. The appellants herein filed the declaration on 19-7-1988 saying they manufacture cables falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act under sub-heading 8544.00. They sought Modvat Credit on the inputs which among others indicated copper and they declared copper wire thicker than 14 SWG classifiable under Sub-heading 7407 and copper wire finer than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice on 8-7-1991 for denying Modvat credit on their inputs culminating in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 18-11-1991 confirming demand for Rs. 1,50,523/- under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which decision having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, dated 26-2-1992, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Shri R. Swaminathan, the learned Consultant for the appellants submitted the deletion of the inputs covered by others under Sub-heading 7408.19 was only due to inadvertance of the representative of the appellants. There was no communication from the appellants to the Department at any stage to delete the inputs. The Department has further granted them p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese views of the Bench. Moreover, it is not in evidence whether due to any reason appellants had at any stage sought the deletion of the input which had already been included in their declaration of 19-7-1988. The Department also while taking steps to recover the Modvat in this case, did nothing to either amend or withdraw the permission given by them for the removal of input outside the appellants factory under Rule 57F(2) which would have been logical consequence. Another aspect to be noted is that the deletion had not been effected by the person who had signed declaration and hence will be of questionable validity. In these circumstances, we are satisfied, it will be reasonable to hold that the deletion of the inputs from the declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
