9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended by the appellant s Advocate, Dr. Samir Chakraborty, that in the year 1988, they filed a declaration with their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities under Rule 57G declaring the input as ball bearing steel rounds - classifiable under sub-heading 7214.10. The final product manufactured by them is forged/rolled rings. He submits that right from 1988 onwards, they have been receiving the gate passes in which the inputs were described by different descriptions other than `ball bearing steel rounds and though the Chapter Heading was 72, different sub-heading was shown and nevertheless, no objection was ever raised by the Central Excise Authorities as against the availment of the Modvat credit. However, a show cause notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective of the fact that no declaration under Rule 57G was filed and no Modvat procedural requirements were followed. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri S.N. Ghosh submits that sub-heading 7214.00 relates to non-alloy steel forged products, whereas sub-heading 7228.00 covers alloy steel hot drawn or hot extruded products. He relies on the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Indian Hume Pipe reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 885 (Tribunal) = 1995 (57) ECR 344 as also on the Supreme Court decision reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 169. 5. Relying on the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Shriram Chemicals bearing Order No. A-70/CAL/95, dated 10-5-1995, he submits that the declaration should be concise and specific so as to cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the heading, it is the manufacturer who is a looser and so it cannot be said that the manufacturer gains anything by not making a proper declaration. It is also not the Department s case that the inputs received by the appellants have not paid duty or they have not been utilised in the manufacture of the final product which was ultimately cleared on payment of duty. As observed in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. L. T. reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 624 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 445 (supra), denial of Modvat credit on the ground of minor variation in the description of classification of inputs, would be virtually penalising the manufacturer without any fault on their parts. The very purpose of filing any declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
