1998 (9) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in their declaration dated 2-2-1994 they had mentioned the final product as textile machinery component/parts and ultimately also they had manufactured only the textile machinery part i.e. 'base fixing pin'. If the classification of the said item was different i.e. 7318.90 from heading 8448 as declared by the appellants, the same could not be held against them since it is not as if they had not declared the item at all or set out to manufacture a totally different item as observed by the AC in the impugned order. As held by the Tribunal in a number of cases where the product belongs to the same family, same genus and same identity it cannot be said that there was in complete or no declaration at all. Vide case law in Gujarat Alkalies & Che....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l) wherein the Tribunal dictated that no Modvat credit can be granted in case the declaration could not be filed and that the declaration has to be such that it communicates to the authority as to the nature of the inputs being brought in and nature of the finished product being manufactured by the respondents. 3. He also cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Ganesh Steel Industries as reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 271 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that failure to file declaration specifying the particular input disentitles the manufacturer of credit of duty paid on inputs received by him under MODVAT scheme. 4. I have heard carefully considered the submissions of ld. DR in the matter. 5. In this....