1992 (8) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the manufacturers of Pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants are enjoying the benefits of modvat as envisaged under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and had filed modvat declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to avail credit of duty paid on inputs. On scrutiny of the input gate passes and modvat declaration filed by the appellant it was observed that the appellant had not properly declared the inputs as required under Rule 57G but availed the credit to the tune of Rs. 1,02,485.33 during the period from Jan., 1991 to March, 1991. Hence, a show cause notice dated 1-8-1991 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause to the Asstt. Collector, B'lore IV Dn. B'l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the tariff heading as declared by the appellant vis-a-vis the tariff headings found in the gate passes under which the inputs have been received. In coming to the above conclusion the Assistant Collector has placed reliance on a decision of the South Regional Bench, CEGAT, Madras in the case of Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 28 (Tribunal). The appellant's argument that the Assistant Collector has wrongly placed reliance on the above-said decision has sufficient force. In the said order the South Regional Bench found that the plea of the appellant therein was factually not correct. The appellant therein had contended before the Tribunal that they had imported the goods in question in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this case there is no dispute on this. The appellant also says that the rate of duty is also the same irrespective of the tariff headings declared vis-a-vis found in the gate passes under which the inputs have been received. The Assistant Collector has also stated that there is no variation in the description of the inputs in the assessee's declaration as compared to the input gate passes and there is no dispute in regard to the assessee's final products. He has found the variation only in respect of the tariff sub-headings of the inputs. At the time of personal hearing, the authorised Representative of the appellant also submitted copies of few gate passes to show that they have received some of the inputs and the tariff classification fou....