TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture of the said goods under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. The declaration is filed under Rule 57G for availing Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. As per Notification 177/86 dated 1-3-1986 amended from time to time the assessee should have availed the credit of duty to the tune of Rs. 800/- per MT in res-pect of duty paid on the inputs received and used by them in the manufacture of final product. But, they have availed excess credit than permissible on the inputs falling under Chapter 48 used in the manufacture of final product. It resulted in the issue of show cause notices by the Range Superintendent on 31-5-1990 proposing the recovery of Rs. 29,570.59 for the period November 1989 to December 1989 and calling upon the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (78) E.L.T. 779 in the case of GTC Industries v. CCE. As per the annexure to show cause notice 12-7-1990 at 'D' total duty paid on the inputs is 1,37,145.56, basic excise duty and Rs. 68,650/- special excise duty totalling to Rs. 1,44,003.06. The show cause notice alleges that the Modvat credit is restricted only to 1474.167 basic excise duty and 703.71 special excise duty totalling to Rs. 14,777 which is not correct. The interpretation of the notification is debatable and reasonable. The restriction amounts to 90%, which cannot be the intention of the Central Government to limit only to 10% of Modvat credit. 3. As per the list of dates and events filed by the appellant the show cause notice dated 31-1-1991 at Annexure 'D' covers 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling under other heading against which no appeal is filed by the department. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has urged that the notification No. 177/86 is not applicable to the instant case on hand as the period is different. If the printed wrapper is article of paper, which is out of the purview of the above notification. The decisions of the Tribunal supports the case of the appellant. The ld. JDR for the respondent has contended that the products involved in the rulings are different from the product in this case. In Shree Arun Packaging it is printed carton and in GTC it is cigarette pack, which are different from the product in this case. The order of the West Zonal Bench dated 19-8-1999 does not decide that the notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one admissible to them legally. The reasons are contained in page 3 and 4 of his order. According to the same, he has concluded that the appellant has no defence, which forced to maintain a long silence, and there could hardly be any defence, inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 57G read with notification are crystal clear. Inputs namely paper wrappers received by the assessee are covered by Chapter sub-heading No. 4823.19 within the purview of the Notification 177/86 dated 1-3-1986, which has put the restricted credit of Rs. 800/- per MT. The order is very vague, and there is no discussion and finding as to why the input comes within the particular Chapter heading. Chapter 2823.19 deals with other paper and paperboards, cellulose, wadding an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition being meant for packaging or repacking some materials or articles. Linking to the use of the product coupled with that they are printed itself found that only heading under which it can be classified under sub-heading 4818.19 and therefore the wrappers are classifiable under sub-heading No. 4818.19. The decision in the case of GTC Industries Ltd v. CCE in Para 18 it has held the wrapper is undoubtedly they are printed sheet paper neither functions as a label nor is used as such. It cannot be denied that is used for wrapping. The Board's circular dated 23-10-1990 under No. 42/90 has included printing as one of the conversion activity and has observed inter alia that the printed wrapper cut to shape or size is basically for wrapping of ....