TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods declared in the Modvat declaration were different from the correct Chapter Headings. In the declaration filed under Rule 57G, the assessee had declared Heat Sink under Chapter sub-heading 8714.00 and Connectors under Chapter sub-headings 8714.00 and 8548.00. The lower appellate authority observed that the supplier of the goods had mentioned the correct classification of the inputs in their invoices and that the Chapter Headings/sub-headings so mentioned in the invoices were different from those declared by the assessee under Rule 57G. In respect of Heat Sink, the classification mentioned in the suppliers invoices was 7616.90 whereas the assessee s declaration was 8714.00. In respect of Connector, the suppliers classification as note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit should not be denied on the ground of change in Chapter Heading given in the declaration due to change in the practice of classification, which did not affect the rate of duty. In the present case, the Revenue has no case that the rate of duty was not the same under the different Headings for each of the inputs. The inputs were correctly described in the Modvatable documents, which has not been disputed by the lower authorities. The only objection raised by the authorities is that Chapter Headings different from those mentioned in the suppliers invoices were stated in the Modvat declaration. This cannot be a ground for denial of Modvat credit, as per Board s Circular. Ld. Counsel has also relied on final Order No. A/1029/2000-NB(SM), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in Kamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) E.L.T. 247], wherein the Bench considered the Board s Circular dated 23-2-99 and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to examine afresh the admissibility of Modvat credit on certain inputs in the light of the Board s Circular coupled with Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-99. I find that, as per the amendment brought to Rule 57G by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) ibid, inputs credit was not to be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under Rule 57G(1) did not contain all the details required to be contained therein. It follows that, even if the Chapter Headings were not mentioned in the declaration, Modvat credit on the inputs could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
