9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants after filing the requisite declaration under Rule 57T, wherein they had themselves classified the goods under the above sub-heading. The department objected to the availment of credit on the ground that capital goods falling under Heading 84.31 were not eligible under Rule 57Q for Modvat credit during the material period. On this basis, a show-cause notice was issued, which came to be adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who chose to revise the classification of the goods under sub-heading 8474.10 and accordingly allowed capital goods credit to the assessee. During the period of dispute, capital goods falling under the said Tariff entry were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. Opposed to the view taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. As long as the goods remained classified under Heading 84.31 at the supplier s end and as long as the invoice issued by the supplier and the Modvat declaration filed by the assessee also indicated classification of the goods under the same entry, the question of admissibility of credit on such goods to the assessee under Rule 57Q would be determined with reference to the said Tariff entry only. In other words, learned SDR would support the impugned order. 3. In his rejoinder, learned Consultant refers to the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (Tribunal - LB), wherein the admissibility of Modvat credit in respect of certain inputs for a period prior to the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not attempt this course of action. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over them took up the task of reclassifying the goods while deciding as to whether the assessee was eligible for Modvat credit on the goods under Rule 57Q(1). As rightly held by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner at the assessee s end had no jurisdiction to revise the classification of the goods, which function belonged to his counterpart at Coimbatore. On the facts of this case, thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that the capital goods classified in the relevant invoice under sub-heading 8431.00, in respect of which the assessee filed declaration under Rule 57T classifying the goods under the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
