2005 (5) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Appellant and Shri K. Sanyal, JDR for Respondent. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that there is no dispute that the goods integrated circuits and CPU are falling under sub heading No. 8542.00 had been received by the appellants duty paid under cover of proper Duty paying documents and had b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edural lapse. He submits that the Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-1999 has laid down that the credit should not be disallowed on the ground on minor procedural lapses on the part of assessee for not failing the declaration if the Assistant Commissioner is otherwise satisfied about the receipt of the duty paid character of the inputs. He relies on the following decisions : 2000 (121 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t produce any technical proof that the CPU and the Integrated Circuit are one and the same thing. Therefore, the contention of appellant cannot be acceptable. So far the decision cited by the learned Consultant is concerned, they pertain to all those cases where the inputs were exempted from duty and had subsequently became dutiable. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal held that filing of decl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X