9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondents. [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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit to them in view of the law laid down by the Tribunal 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case has been the subject matter of a number of decision of 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 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
