1996 (3) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cessories of tractors, lubrication system for infantory cambat vehicles, M.V. Parts etc. falling under Chapter 87.08, 87.10 and 84.83 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of Modvat Scheme. They received the goods namely, DC Electric Motor, Connecting Rod and Mandral and claimed Modvat Credit. The department's case is that the appellants had declared these inputs in their declaration which had not been filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These goods had been received by G.P.Is No. 6 dated 22-3-1991 No. 18 dated 6-1-1992, No. 159 dated 23-6-1992, No. 187 dated 11-7-1992 and availed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 81,400 and Rs. 12,338.49 respectively. It is also stated that G.P.1 No. 18 dated 6-1-199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of `forging' under Heading 7326.19. It is his contention that there are hundreds of forged products and therefore, in the declaration they had only mentioned the main heading without giving list of these hundreds of forged products which are used as inputs. He submitted that the declaration has since been amended and they have given details of all the forged products to the department. 4. As regards Mandral, the Learned Advocate pointed out that the GP. 1 was in the name of Eicher Tractor, Faridabad and it had been sent to the appellant's company. It is his submission that there is no misutilisation of this gate pass in the other unit at Faridabad and it is only a technical lapse inasmuch as the GP. 1 should have been endorsed fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....connecting rod and a general description in the declaration cannot be accepted as a declaration for connecting rod. 8. As regards the Mandral, the Learned DR submitted that the gate pass cannot be accepted, as the same was in the appellant's unit. The same argument was pressed for the Electric Motor in which the appellants' name had been wrongly described. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is required to be sustained. 9. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I notice that there has been no declaration filed in respect of input DC Electric Motor. This item has been described in the G.P. 1 as DC Motor only and not as the Oil Priming Pump Assembly. The tariff heading of both the ite....