1996 (2) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accessories thereof 8464.00 i.e. slabs/ tiles/polishing/block cutting/champering and engineering, dressing/bridge cutting, splitring, marble wheel cutting, edge cutting, heavy and light marble drill, Engroduty, sper sharper, portable edge cutting machine, single disk cutter and granite and marble gangsaw etc.' Thus it is very clear that they did not declare the parts of gangsaw falling under sub-heading 8466.00, as their final product. Their contention that the declaration of sub-heading is not required has rightly been rejected by the adjudicating officer, and more importantly, their declaration of the goods falling under sub-heading 8464.00 cannot be stretched to include goods of sub-heading 8466.00. I, therefore, find that the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the Gangsaw classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 8466.00 and paid duty on this Gangsaw by debiting an amount of Rs. 39,875/- as basic Excise Duty and Rs. 875/- as Special Excise Duty in RG-23A Part II out of the credit earned by them under Modvat Scheme. The Department alleged that the appellants did not file any declaration in respect of parts of Gangsaw, in their declaration dated 29-10-1990. As show-cause notice was therefore, issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 40,750/- should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 real with Section 11A of the CESA, 1944. After considering the submissions made by the appellants, the Collector confirmed the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve benefit cannot be denied on trivial technicalities. 4. Shri R.A. Sheikh, the learned JDR submitted that the declaration filed by the appellants did not describe Gangsaw parts as finial products; that Rule 57G requires that brief description of the goods should be given; that the appellants did not give the brief description nor the correct Chapter Heading and thus, it was not mere a technicality but a substantive requirement which can be termed as a mandatory requirement. He submitted that the lower authorities have rightly denied them the benefit of Modvat credit. 5.  Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration, I find that two rules are relevant in the present case. First is Rule 57A of the Central Excise ....