1999 (4) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d of the Modvat credit scheme. on 2-12-1996, a show cause notice was issued in which it was alleged that they had taken Modvat credit and utilised the material in the manufacture of final goods, before filing a declaration. It was further claimed that the credit so taken was not admissible and that the duty amounting to Rs. 2,70,807.29 not paid on account of wrong utilisation of the credit was rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere a generic name was mentioned in the declaration, a brand name input could not be allowed if the declaration contained a brand name different from that. On this observation he upheld the lower order resulting in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri P.V. Patankar for the appellants and Shri V.K. Suman for the Revenue. 3. Shri P.V. Patankar states that in the initial period neither the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal. 4. Shri V.K. Suman supports the case of the Department. He states that specific instances were cited by the Collector to sustain his observation the goods were not declared in the declaration at all. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. The Collector has given specific instances. I find that the controversy between Industrial Heater and Electric Heater is on account of different s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X