9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ghosh, learned JDR for the appellant Collector; and Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned advocate for the respondents, I find that the Modvat credit was originally disallowed by the Additional Collector (Technical), Central Excise, Bhubaneswar on the grounds of variations in the modvat declaration filed by the respondents and the description given in the duty paying documents. On appeal against the above order of the Additional Collector, the same was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Modvat credit was denied on eccentric Brg and proof machined castings classifiable under sub-heading 7419.99 on the ground that the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules describes the inputs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. The respondent s contention is that what they had declared in the declaration is power pack and what has been received by them is again a power pack and in the circumstances, there was no justification for disallowing the Modvat credit. 6. Modvat credit taken on cup springs classifiable under Tariff Heading 7326.90 was disallowed by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the same is declared as springs classifiable under sub-heading 7326.00 by the appellants. The appellant s explanation in respect of the above item is that in the relevant bill of entry the springs were mentioned as falling under sub-heading 7326.90 whereas as per Central Excise Tariff, they were covered under sub-heading 7320.00. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 214.90. 10. I have carefully considered the allegations made against the respondents, order of the Additional Collector and order of the first appellate authority. I find that the Modvat credit was disallowed originally to the respondents on the ground of there being minor variations either in the description of the inputs or in the classification of the inputs than the declared description and declared sub-headings. The Collector (Appeals) had given benefit to the respondents on the ground that there is no dispute that the appellants had received inputs in the factory premises and had actually utilised them in the manufacture of final product which was subsequently cleared on payment of duty. He has held that a minor variation in the des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the common parlance in their declaration. The denial of the Modvat on the ground that classification of the inputs declared by the assessee under Rule 57G is not tallying with the classification of the inputs as shown in the duty paying documents accompanying the inputs is not legal inasmuch as the classification is decided by the originating Central Excise Officers having jurisdiction for the factory of the manufacturer of the inputs over which an assessee has no control. Similarly, the description of the inputs may vary because of the prevalance of different names of the same input in the market. Further, some manufacturers may choose to describe the goods in a more elaborate manner and some may stick to the wider description like in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
