Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1996 (3) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction indicating the description of the final product manufactured and the inputs intended to be used therein. Manufacuturer who has filed such a declaration may after obtaining the acknowledgement thereof take credit of duty paid on the inputs received by him. The issue in this case relates to the eligibility for Modvat credit in respect of copper wires falling under Sub-heading 7408.19. The appellants herein filed the declaration on 19-7-1988 saying they manufacture cables falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act under sub-heading 8544.00. They sought Modvat Credit on the inputs which among others indicated copper and they declared copper wire thicker than ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dings were initiated against the appellants by issue of show cause notice on 8-7-1991 for denying Modvat credit on their inputs culminating in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 18-11-1991 confirming demand for Rs. 1,50,523/- under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which decision having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, dated 26-2-1992, the present appeal has been filed. 2.  Shri R. Swaminathan, the learned Consultant for the appellants submitted the deletion of the inputs covered by "others" under Sub-heading 7408.19 was only due to inadvertance of the representative of the appellants. There was no communication from the appellants to the Department ....