1996 (2) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Division, disallowing the MODVAT credit, amounting to Rs. 38,308.24. The appeals were argued together by the respective sides and are disposed of by this common order. 2.  Shri P.R. Ravi, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) of the appellants Company submits on their behalf that MODVAT credit has been claimed by them in respect of kraft paper required by them in the manufacture of their final product, coated Abrasives. They receive the input materials from different sources. The kraft paper that they require is of 120 GSM. They had declared the tariff classification of their inputs in question as 4804.19 which covers paper of a substance 65 gm per sq/m or more. They received most of their supplies of the required materials showing this t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r classification will not enable the appellants to get the benefit if what they have received is another product with another classfication. He cited the Tribunal decision in Indian Hume and Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore - 1995 (57) ECR 344 where tariff classification 25.02 furnished by the appellants therein for the input material, cement was not considered specific enough. MODVAT credit was held to be not admissible to them. They had not filed variety wise declaration with the appropriate tariff sub-heading as they were bringing in Port Land Cement falling under 2502.20 and also Sulphate Resistant Cement falling under sub-heading 2502.90. Shri Ghosh, submitted that the department's case in the present appeals are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same and the rate of duty under two sub-headings was also the same. The Tribunal also observed that the input suppliers are not under the control of the appellants and as long as appropriate description of the input materials have been correctly given in the declaration, MODVAT credit would be admissible. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the present case and taking into account the facts involved in the present appeals, I find that the tariff classification 4804.29 shown in the gate pass in question is inconsistent with the description of the goods, kraft paper GSM 120. This would support the plea taken on behalf of the appellant that there was an apparent error in the tariff classification at the hands of the officer-in-charge o....