9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned the final product as textile machinery component/parts and ultimately also they had manufactured only the textile machinery part i.e. base fixing pin . If the classification of the said item was different i.e. 7318.90 from heading 8448 as declared by the appellants, the same could not be held against them since it is not as if they had not declared the item at all or set out to manufacture a totally different item as observed by the AC in the impugned order. As held by the Tribunal in a number of cases where the product belongs to the same family, same genus and same identity it cannot be said that there was in complete or no declaration at all. Vide case law in Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal), I.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be granted in case the declaration could not be filed and that the declaration has to be such that it communicates to the authority as to the nature of the inputs being brought in and nature of the finished product being manufactured by the respondents. 3. He also cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Ganesh Steel Industries as reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 271 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that failure to file declaration specifying the particular input disentitles the manufacturer of credit of duty paid on inputs received by him under MODVAT scheme. 4. I have heard carefully considered the submissions of ld. DR in the matter. 5. In this particular case, as seen from the findings of the learned Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing brought in and the nature of finished product being manufactured by the respondents. In the present case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly given a finding that there is no ambiguity found from the declaration filed with regard to inputs or the final product. In this regard, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 578 is relevant to the present case wherein the item Mafron gas had been declared as Freon gas and the Tribunal held that such misdescription should be ignored likewise in the case of C.C.E. v. Ratan Industries Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 573 it has been held that Modvat benefit is admissible, even if description and tariff headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
