9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ylic fibre/acrylic waste. 2. It was contended by the appellants that they had filed declarations under Rule 57G on 28-3-1994, declared the process of manufacture along with declaration under Rule 57E and they had also filed a declaration under Rule 57F(3). It was seriously contended that the declarations and the invoices tallied and that the allegation of taking Modvat credit without declaring is totally not substantiated by the department. However, both the authorities without due verification of the declarations or the invoices or even the case law have rejected their pleas and has confirmed the demand besides imposing penalty. 3. I have perused the impugned orders and the records and heard both the sides. The Learned Commissioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the Modvat. It was specifically contended before the Bench that in terms of Rule 57G(5), the Assistant Commissioner has got powers to condone the delay in such circumstances, if the declaration has been filed within 6 months from the date of taking the credit. It is contended that this procedure has been followed. However, both the authorities have failed to examine the issue in the light of the declarations filed and also in the light of rules and the law laid down by the Tribunal and the higher authorities. 4. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Triton Valves Ltd. as reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 289, the Tribunal examining the earlier judgment has rejected the Revenue appeal and has held that :- It is not disputed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove paragraph of the judgment, the Tribunal in a categorical terms referring to the Board s circular has held that credit cannot be disallowed, if the description is not exact and is broad based so long as the inputs have been utilised in the final product. 6. In the case of Jain Kaliawala Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 908 in a similar circumstances, the Tribunal held that the photocopies of the gate-passes submitted indicate that many consignments have been received from manufacturers directly, though show cause notice indicates that the consignments have been received from Stockyard. The Tribunal considering the issue as to whether some consignments were covered by gate passes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minor variation in sub-heading number is not relevant when the goods fall under the same Chapter heading specified in the Notification and hence Modvat cannot be denied on the ground of variation in sub-headings. This judgment of the Tribunal referred to earlier judgment as well on this point. 8. In the case of W.S. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 960 and Super Collapsible Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 820, it has been held that wrong mention of sub-heading is not a ground to deny the substantive benefit of Modvat credit. In both these judgments, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the earlier judgment of the Tribunal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
