TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als are different. It is considered proper to examine each Appeal separately. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 2. In this Appeal the total disputed amount is Rs.14,08,949/- this amount is classified under three different headings and the submissions of the Appellants are recorded as under :- 2.1 Non Filing of Declaration under Rule 173 G CER 1944 before Receipt of Inputs (credit of Rs.14,25,580/-) Since various suppliers denote their products by varying specific names and as Appellant have been manufacturing customs built equipment, it was not always possible to declare the inputs especially fitments/components with specific nomenclature used by their suppliers. Nonetheless, immediately on receipt of the inputs were received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (T) (b) CCE Vs. Punjab Maize Products Vs. 1996 (84) ELT 360 (c) Indo American Electricals Vs. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 797 (T) (d) CCE Vs, Kumar Auto Cast 1996 (82) ELT 137 (T). In any case since the assessments were provisional and if the jurisdictional authorities were clear and consistent in their stand in that event the refund ought to have been allowed at the time of finalisation of assessments, since it is not in dispute that the amount was mistakenly debited and Appellants were entitled to the credit. 2.3 Credit on Part/Component of Capital goods (Rs.4,320/) The credit is denied on the ground that the Tariff headings under which the goods were classified where not specified in Rule 57 Q for allowing Cenvat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the part of Superintendent C.E. about Deputy Commissioner, C.E. s acceptance of certificate and permission to clear w.e.f. 16.9.1999 the transformer without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 8.8.95. 3.1.2. Thus despite the fact that Appellant had duly submitted the requisite certificate in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE on 15.9.1999, since formal permission was not conveyed to them by jurisdictional Supdt. C.E. they made the provisional debit in their RG-23A Part-II Account in October while clearing the transformers to M/s A.P. Transco. However, on receipt of the information about admissibility of exemption w.e.f. 15.9.1999 the Appellant passed a re-credit entry adjusting the provisional debits made within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Rule 173 G before receipt of inputs. The submissions in the matter are the same as submissions already recorded against such matter in respect of appeal No. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 E/1221/2005 5. The total disputed amount in this appeal is Rs.19,97,158/-. This amount is split into two categories and the Appellants make the following submissions :- 5.1 Filing of Declaration after Receipt of Inputs (Credit Rs.14,25,580/) The submissions in the matter are the same as submissions already recorded against such matter in respect of appeal No. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 5.2 Re-credit Entry After 180 Days from date of issuance U/r 57F(4) in Modvated Inputs (After initial availment of credit) on receipt from Job....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for Revenue did not raise any arguments in matters relating to credit taken before filing of declarations under Rule 173G and Modvat credit taken on inputs received back from job-worker to distinguish the case at hand from the facts of the cases already decided by Tribunal relating the said issues. 6.2 The Ld A. R. has contested that the action of the appellants in taking suo moto credit of duty already paid on goods is not proper. His contention is that if there is any excess payments made the appellants should have applied for refund and no such application has been filed in these cases and so such suo motto credit taken should be reversed. 6.3 He also strongly contests the issue of suo motto refund taken due to ne....