9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the Appellants during the period November, 1987 to June, 1990. 3. Appellants are manufacturers of automotive gears falling under Chapter sub-heading 8708.00. The Department alleged that the appellants were wrongly availing Modvat credit on Steel Forgings falling under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff as inputs in the manufacture of their final product, Automotive Gears, without filing declaration as required under Rule 57G. By a Show Cause Notice dated 25-9-1991 the Department alleged that the Appellants had suppressed the facts relating to use of forgings as inputs in the guise of Steel Bars and Steel Billets. 4. The Collector Central Excise, Allahabad who adjudicated the matter held against the appellants. In his Order h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the credit taken from November, 1989 to January, 1989 recoverable. 5. Shri L.P. Asthana appearing for the Appellants before us submitted that during the period in dispute the appellants were receiving non-duty paid Steel Forgings and there was no question of their claiming Modvat credit on Steel Forgings. Their claim for Modvat credit would therefore in any case be restricted to steel bars. They had also, by declaration dated 14-7-1987 stated that they were receiving such Steel Forgings cleared from other manufacturers for using them as inputs for manufacturing their final products. There was therefore, no basis for invoking the extended period under Section 11A. In any event, they could not have gained anything by declaring forgings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is. 7. We have considered the submissions made of both sides. On the question of time-bar the case of the Appellants is that they had in their declarations clearly described the nature of the forgings and also disclosed the place from where they were procured. The lower authority according to them had taken a one-sided view stating that the appellant had declared Steel Forgings as [an] intermediate product. The duty paid Steel Bars were used as inputs in the process of manufacture of Steel Forgings which was ultimately used as the input in the manufacture of final product, namely automotive gears. In their letter dated 12-6-1987 appellants had also mentioned that they received Steel Forgings from various manufacturers and utilised them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
