9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal against the impugned order, dated 19-2-1998 in order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai, praying for setting aside the same and to allow the appeal with consequential relief. 1. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures Bushing metal parts, components for transformers falling under Chapter Sub-heading 8504 and avail Modvat credit for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejected material is not an input. Hence this appeal. 2. The Appellant has by the letter, dated 7-7-1998 informed that the duty amount as per the order-in-original, as confirmed in the impugned order is debited in RG23A part II account under Entry No. 973, dated 30-3-1998, as mentioned in column No. 9 of the EA3, and the appeal may be decided on merits as per the Appeal Memorandum. Heard the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Modvat credit is permissible if declaration is filed under Rule 57G showing the rejected goods as the input. Nowhere, it is mentioned by the Appellant on what date declaration is filed, nor a copy of it is produced in this case. So under these circumstances as contended by the learned DR, this has to be verified, and then decide the claim of the Appellant. So the appeal has to be remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
