1999 (12) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Short point involved in the present appeal is that whether the strips received by the appellants as inputs falling under Sub-heading 7211.59 can be allowed for Modvat credit when the declaration by the appellants was in respect of M.S. Hoops classifiable under Sub-heading 7211.30. 2. Shri P.K. Das, ld. Advocate submits that M.S. Hoops as wel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in the following cases :- (i) Indian Chain Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I [1997 (21) RLT 676 (CEGAT) ], (ii) Commr. of Central Excise. Mumbai-V v. Shalimar Textile Mfg. Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal) = 1999 (34) RLT 349 (CEGAT)], (iii) Best Crompton Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [1999 (34) RLT 791 (CEGAT)]. 3. Ld. Advo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Tribunal. The Tribunal has consistently held that where the tariff heading is correctly shown, the difference on account of sub-heading should not result in denial of Modvat credit. As in the present case, it has been shown to me that the strip was also used as hoop and was reflected in the stores ledgers for hoops and was used for foot-ring of the cylinder, I do not find this difference in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X