TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lania, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants manufactured aluminium wire rods on job work basis in the manufacture of which aluminium plates supplied by three manufacturers were used. On an examination of the inputs, it appeared to the departmental officers that the inputs were not aluminium plates falling under Heading 7606.10 but would be corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The present appeal is against this order. 2. Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Amrita Mitra, Advocate appeared for the applicants. Revenue was represented by Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. JDR. 3. Shri Vellapally stated that when the Collector had accepted that the classification had not deliberately been wrongly shown to benefit the receiver, there was no cause for impositi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a that the demand is barred by limitation. 4. Shri Y.R. Kilania supported the observations made by the Collector and justified the action of confirmation of demand and of imposition of penalty. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. Rule 57G(2) (IVth Proviso) prescribes that the manufacturer should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge of the receiving manufacture can not change the classification of any inputs received by any manufacturer availing of modvat credit. In the case cited before us, the Customs authorities had classified certain goods for the purpose of charging additional duty of customs. When these goods were received by the manufacturer, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers sought to re-classify the prod....