2001 (11) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l itself has been taken up for disposal, after waiving pre-deposit. 2. The question involved in this case as revealed in the show cause notice is that the assessees have neither obtained permission from the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over their factory nor have they filed any declaration before the Assistant Collector as required under paragraph 2 of Notification 214/86. Thereby the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals) the appellant invited the attention of the appellate authority several decisions including the decision of the SRB in the case of Maschmeijer Aromatics (I) Ltd. v. CCE - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 395. Under the similar circumstances, the Tribunal held that even if the Collector s prior permission was not taken, Modvat credit cannot be denied. But the Commissioner (Appeals) without discussing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o violates the rules and person who does not violate the rules, but the fact remains that it is not the case of the department that the processed goods obtained from the job worker were utilised in the manufactured of the final product in the assessee s factory. As long as input has been used in or in relation to the final product Modvat credit cannot be denied. This is the view of the Tribunal in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X