9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for End Shield intended to be used in the manufacture of End Shield (final product) on the ground that neither the input nor the final product is specifically declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is justified. The credit was taken by the appellant on 12-7-91 and the show cause notice was issued on 17-6-96. The appellant contends that the demand is unsustainable on the ground of limitation also. As required under Rule 57G the appellant filed a declaration on 23-6-86 indicating therein the description of the inputs intended to be used in or in relation to the final product and obtained a dated acknowledgement from the office of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further contended that the product they manufactured was End Shield which is used for capping/covering the Reactor of the Nuclear Power Plants and that though they have not specifically mentioned the term End Shield , this is covered by the broad description given by them in the classification list. The appellant would contend that in view of such broad description Modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the detailed description of the inputs was not filed/mentioned. Learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Indore - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 433 in support of the above contention. In the above decision this Tribunal has taken the view that deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had received the letter dated 14/19-6-89. The appellant had specifically contended before the authority that the letter dated 12-6-90 was happened to be sent in respect of certain information sought by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on his visit to the factory. A reading of the above letter would clearly show that reference is made to the visit of the Assistant Collector and along with the letter information in the proforma suggested by the Assistant Collector was sent. This aspect was overlooked by the lower authority. It is also contended by the appellant that it will not be benefited by withholding information. Taking into consideration all these aspects we are of the view that there was no suppression on the part of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
