TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledged on 5-8-1987. In their letter dated 5-8-1987 submitted along with the declaration, they had claimed Modvat credit in respect of inputs in stock and in process as on 29-7-1987 under the provisions of Rule 57H. Though, the details of such inputs were not furnished, it was also stated in the said letter that since they were not under excise control, they had not insisted on GP1s from the consignors and purchased the inputs from the open market. In the circumstances, they requested that they may be granted the benefit under the said Rule 57H. 2. The respondents in August, 1987 itself submitted a statement of inputs and finished stock containing inputs as on 29-7-1987. This statement was submitted to the Supdt. of the Range. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent with respect to particulars of description, quantity and the stock as on 29-7-1989 as furnished by the appellants. Subject to the verification of the factual position as above, the Modvat credit claimed by the appellants under Rule 57H(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is held to be admissible to them. 6. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. JDR, Shri Nunthuk, has reiterated the findings of Assistant Collector as already stated above. As against the aforesaid Shri Piyush Goyal, Director of the respondent company has stated that the statement was duly given in August, 1987 itself. Subsequent statements given after 17 months referred to in the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector was in a specific form desi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find sufficient force in his statement that the subsequent statements given by him which are available at pages 13 and 15 of the Paper Book are nothing but a different form of the same statement because the statement at page 15 relates to the inputs which they have purchased under GP 1 inasmuch as it shows the amount in GP 1 whereas the statement at page 13 is in respect of inputs purchased by them from open market inasmuch as the amount of duty as per GP 1 has not been shown therein. From these overall facts and circumstances we do not agree with the contention of the Revenue that statement of inputs lying in stock and in finished goods was not produced by the respondents in August, 1987. Even otherwise if the records maintained by the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
