1998 (6) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extent of Rs. 3,62,000.00 and Rs. 20,41,256.65, respectively. 2. It is contended by the appellant's Advocate, Dr. Samir Chakraborty, that in the year 1988, they filed a declaration with their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities under Rule 57G declaring the input as "ball bearing steel rounds" - classifiable  under  sub-heading 7214.10. The final product manufactured by them is forged/rolled rings. He submits that right from 1988 onwards, they have been receiving the gate passes in which  the inputs were described by different descriptions other than `ball bearing steel rounds' and though the Chapter Heading was 72, different sub-heading was shown and nevertheless, no objection was ever raised by the Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly raised by the Department was allowed to be neutralised to the extent of Modvat credit available to the assessee in that case, irrespective of the fact that no declaration under Rule 57G was filed and no Modvat procedural requirements were followed. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri S.N. Ghosh submits that sub-heading 7214.00 relates to non-alloy steel forged products, whereas sub-heading 7228.00 covers alloy steel hot drawn or hot extruded products. He relies on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Indian Hume Pipe reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 885 (Tribunal) = 1995 (57) ECR 344 as also on the Supreme Court decision reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 169. 5. Relying on the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Neither is it the Department's case that the correct heading was not declared by the appellants with any mala fide intention.   In fact, by not declaring the heading, it is the manufacturer who is a looser and so it cannot be said that the manufacturer gains anything by not making a proper declaration. It is also not the Department's case that the inputs received by the appellants have not paid duty or  they have not been utilised in the manufacture of the final product which was ultimately cleared on payment of duty. As observed in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. L. & T. reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 624 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 445 (supra), denial of Modvat credit on the ground of minor variation....