9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma, Member (T)]. The issue for determination in all these five appeals is the same. Therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants imported polypropylene monopolymer, copolymer and polypropylene compound claiming classification thereof under Chapter Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct classification of the inputs is only a technical breach when the inputs have been correctly described in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. He submits that the similar view was taken by the Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Taj Forgings and Stampings [1995 (79) E.L.T. 168] wherein the Tribunal had held that failure to mention correct tariff classification does not debar availment of Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails regarding duty payment particulars, description of the goods etc. are shown. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kores (India) Limited [1997 (89) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.)] ruled that the departmental clarifications are in the form of Tariff Advice or Trade Notice issued by the Board is not binding on the Tribunal or the Courts. The assessee may argue tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation are specified by chapter headings in the notifications issued under Rule 57A read with Rule 57G. He submits that since there are different rates applicable to different chapter headings, therefore, chapter headings become necessary. He reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and relied upon by the appellants and following the ratio thereof, we hold that the Modvat credit of duty will be admissible to the appellants on the product described by them as polypropylene compound. In the instant case, we also note that there is no dispute about the use of product in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. There is no dispute about the quantum of duty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
