9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l product for which such inputs are to be used. Besides, the two final products are classified differently under the tariff. These facts are a matter of record and have not been disputed but have been overlooked by the adjudicating authority while deciding the appeal. Thus the final products in or in relation to the manufacture on which such credits are sought to be availed of are required to be declared which is not the case here, the impugned order is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, the departmental appeal succeeds and the order of the adjudicating officer is set aside . Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal held that copper wire rod was common input for a number of final products all of which are dutiable and covered under Modvat scheme and that credit of duty paid on common input can be utilised towards payment of duty on any of the final products covered by declaration. Quantumwise accountal of input for each final product on apportioning duty credit for clearance of each of dutiable final product was not contemplated under Modvat Rules 57A, 57F(3) and 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ld. Counsel submits that somewhat similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Rama Cables Wires Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 256 in which this Tribunal held that Modvat credit allowed in respect of any input can be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-8-1993 are concerned, it has been represented before us that a chart was prepared which is now available at page 40 of the paper book was submitted to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We note that in this chart, CVD duty paid on HDPE granules has not figured as utilised for the purpose of clearing the master batches. We note that this chart was not examined by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which had led to the findings not based on the submissions made. Thus, we find that on this score it is a fit case for remand. Therefore, insofar as SCNs dated 1-2-1993 and 16-8-1993 are concerned, the matter is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that the chart furnished by the appellants may be examined and appropriate orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
