TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants availed Modvat credit on the duty paid on inputs, in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 3. During the year 1989, the appellants were issued four Show Cause Notices alleging that they had taken modvat credit wrongly on certain items and also had short paid duties on certain other items during the period, November 1988 to October 1989. 4. In the initial adjudication proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the appellants contested the charges. The Assistant Collector, however, ordered recovery of Rs. 3,76,920.96 as Modvat credit wrongly availed and also directed the recovery of short payment of duty on the amount claimed by the appellants as trade discount a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the assessee s duty to furnish proof in support of their claim before the Assistant Collector or before the Collector (Appeals). Since this was not done, the Assistant Collector s order disallowing credit for the said amount was confirmed. Regarding Modvat taken on goods like Nispose CO2 gas, Thinner, Nipa Kolin and Nipon (declared items), the Collector (Appeals) found that Nispose thinner, Niparlin and Nipon were additives to the paint used for painting the vehicles and since the Board by its letter dated 5-4-1989 had allowed Modvat credit on Thiners used for diluting paints Modvat credit on the said items was allowed. Further, since CO2 Gas was used for welding purposes and since the items were used in relation to the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were to be received. Subsequently, additional items were also declared. He drew attention to pages 60 to 69 of the Annexure to the Memorandum of the Appeals containing copies of various lists giving details of the inputs. He contended that in view of the detailed description given by the Appellants from time to time of the various inputs, the findings of the lower authorities that the declaration given by the Appellants were not specific enough and was not adequate for purposes of Rule 57A was incorrect. He also cited the following judgments in support of his contention that generic description of inputs was sufficient for purposes of Rule 57G namely, Eagle Spring India v. Collector of CCE, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal), the J.K. Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and every vendor. If the Appellants are eligible for such credit otherwise they should not have been denied the benefit. As regards the admissibility of packing cost by vendors, he relied on a decision of this Tribunal reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 624 - I.O.L. Ltd. v. CCE in which the packing cost of petroleum products supplied to various consumers by Indian Oil was allowed. Finally, on the question of the gate passes not specifically mentioning the relevant Notification for supplies received from SSI Units, it was his contention that the Appellants could not be denied the benefit merely on that score. He relied on the Tribunal judgment in CCE v. Karnataka Vidyut Karkhane Ltd. reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 299. 8. For the Department Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gate passes did not contain full description of the goods so that it can be verified whether the said inputs have been declared, we are unable to agree with the lower authorities view having regard to the fact that copies of the GP 1s enclosed with the Memorandum of the Appeal have clearly mentioned that the details of the inputs are in the annexed invoices. Appellants claim that proof to the tune of Rs. 1,06,861.69 had been produced before the Collector (Appeals) at the time of personal hearing. We find from the copies of Gate Passes enclosed with the Memo of Appeal (pages 72, 73, 75, 102, 104, 105, 107, 110 and 113) that it has been shown that total quantity have been shown as per Invoice with the name of the Licensee and the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the claim for Modvat credit for Rs. 8,337.00 disallowed by the lower authorities for the reason that the GP 1s were not authenticated by the vendor s excise authorities, Collector (Appeals) had stated that the appellants had not agitated the issue before him and therefore the Asstt. Collector s order disallowing the same remained unaffected. Consultant has submitted before us that the Collector (Appeals) s observation was not correct and the appellants had not given up their claim at any time. He submitted that there was no dispute either about the payment of duty by the vendors as indicated in the Gate Passes nor about their utilisation by the appellants in the production of their final product. In view of this it is contended that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
