TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Jangir Singh, DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - By the impugned order, the appellants have been directed to reverse credit of Rs. 7,82,349.71 P. taken during the period April to December 1989, on paper bags falling under Chapter 39 of the CETA 1985 on the ground that this was not declared as an input and what was declared was paper bags falling under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. We record our findings hereunder : (1) We find that on 21-2-1990, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, had issued a communication to the appellants in which it was clearly stated that the Audit had observed that they had declared paper bags falling under Chapter 48 while they had received paper reinforced bags falling under heading 3923.90 and hence Modvat credit was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Counsel regarding requirement of show cause notice viz. the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.)] is not applicable in the present case wherein we hold that the appellants were put on notice as to the charges they were required to meet. Likewise, the decision of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etween the goods as declared, and the inputs actually received and utilised. The appellants' contention that what they received nothing but paper bags reinforced with plastic, has not been substantiated and they have failed to rebut the findings of the lower authorities that inputs utilised were distinct and different commodities from those declared. Hence, it is not a case of broad description of....