2005 (8) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was denied on the ground that the inputs were not declared by the appellant under the declaration filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they filed a declaration whereby they declared inputs as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal products these are under the same tariff heading as declared in the declaration and only the manufacturer of inputs describes the same with a different name hence the credit cannot be denied. The contention is also that now Rule 57G has been amended by the Notification No. 7/99-C.E. to the effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that all the particulars required are not mentioned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... printed blocks classifiable under the same tariff heading, the same is mentioned in the declaration whereas in the declaration it is mentioned PU Foam Blocks. The Board after taking into consideration of provisions of Notification No. 7/99 and issued a circular dated 23-2-99 whereby it has been clarified that Assistant Commissioner, before issuing show cause notice for wrong availment of Modvat c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X