TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27. The said declaration filed under Rule 57G was acknowledged by the Asstt. Commissioner. However, the Asstt. Commissioner felt that the declaration was not in proper form because the same did not indicate as to which inputs were intended to be used in which of the final products, the same was returned by the Asstt. Commissioner vide his letter dated 11-3-94. The appellant re-submitted the declaration final product-wise on 11-3-94 which was also acknowledged by the authorities of the Asstt. Commissioner. On 16-3-94 Asstt. Commissioner required some further information and gave directions to the appellants as regards the procedure to be followed. Vide their letter dated 29-3-94 appellant submitted the nature and manner of use of different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther contended before us that Modvat credit of Rs. 1,55,89,429.17, out of the total Modvat credit, has been denied on the ground that the inputs were covered by sub-heading 2710.19 or 2710.31 which were excluded from the Modvat scheme. The allegation relates to 1464 invoices. Shri Bagaria has argued that joint verification team was constituted by the Commissioner and the matter was examined. As per the joint verification report found in respect of the said invoices, 1096 invoices admittedly mentioned the tariff headings other than tariff heading No. 2710.19 or 2710.31. However, Modvat has been denied on the ground that the appellant had alloted its own part numbers to all the inputs in their computer data and the sub-headings of their par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipts in the appellant's factory and utilisation in the manufacture of the final product credit cannot be justifiably denied. 5.3In respect of 19 Invoices classification was admittedly mentioned under sub-heading 2710.19 or 2710.31, as per joint verification report. The appellant had admitted their liability to pay back the credit in respect of said invoices. 5.4In respect of 291 Invoices no tariff classification was mentioned at all. However, the appellants have agitated the tariff classification was mentioned on the reverse of the invoices by the dealers. The Commissioner has observed that there is no reference to the original invoices so as to come to the correct classification. The appellant have contended that in case of doubt, ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers of the inputs in the Modvat declarations or duty paying documents to the suppliers. The appellants' contention is that the descriptions given by them in their Modvat declaration tallied with the description of the Inputs in the duty paying documents. The same was, thus, in full and complete compliance with the requirements of Rule 57G. There is no requirement under the said rule to give the appellants' part numbers in the suppliers duty paying documents or to disclose the same in the declarations filed by them. For this they have placed reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of TELCO Ltd. v. CCE, JSR — 1999 (33) RLT 711. Reference filed against the. above decision has also been rejected by the Tribunal. 6.2After hearing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that lubricants, coolants and cutting oils are not covered by the exclusion clause to Rule 57A inasmuch as the same are machine, machinery, plant, equipment, tools or appliances. Reliance has also been placed upon the following decisions in respect of the submission that the said inputs are eligible inputs for the purposes of Modvat credit. (i) 1999 (33) RLT 304 - CCE v. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. - Modvat credit under Rule 57A is allowable on lubricating oil used for maintenance of machines. (ii) 1999 (112) E.L.T. 68 - CCE C v. Bharat Forge Ltd. - Modvat credit is allowable on cutting oil poured on cutting tools to maintain normal temperature in cooling steel. Modvat credit is also allowable on quesching oil us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is nothing on record to show that the dealer in question was registered up to December, 1994. The appellants have placed reference upon Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. TISCO v. CCE. Patna - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 236 (Tribunal) = 1998 (25) RLT 161 (CEGAT). However we are of the view that as the matter needs to go back to find out the registration aspect of the dealers up to December 1994, the issue be decided afresh by the Commissioner in the light of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) = 2000 (96) RLT 666 (CEGAT). 8.2Accordingly this portion of the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. 9.The appellants have also contended that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
