Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Electrical Products of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the assessee in this case claimed modvat credit oh inputs titled as "dog bone", "corner piece" and "resiglass tape". the assistant commissioner allowed their claim. against this order, the department approached the collector (appeals) who in the impugned order upheld the. order of the assistant commissioner.2. in this appeal from the revenue argued by shri k.m. patwari reliance had been placed oh the following judgments in stating that modvat credit had been wrongly extended to the assessee :-collector of central excise v. ganesh steel industries -1992 (60) e.l.t. 271.paro food products v. cce 3. the assessee requested for adjournment on the ground that they are opting for the benefit of kar vivad samadhan scheme. i find that the disposal of this case is not related to this scheme and therefore, proceeded to decide the case.4. the assessee had declared "dog bone" and "nomex paper" under heading 5516. in the bill of entry also the same description had been showed.the customs authorities, however, had changed the classification to heading 56.03. the collector was correct in granting the benefit to the assessee since the goods were covered by the prior declaration. as regards "resiglass tape", the declaration classified the product under heading 8548, whereas, the classification showed in the b/e was under sub-heading 7019.39. in a number of judgments the tribunal has held that difference in tariff heading would not result in denial of credit.this has been so held in-tribunal judgment in the case of maxxon india ltd. v. cce -1997 (95) e.l.t. 532.5. the case law cited by the jdr is not relevant inasmuch as all the three inputs were duly declared.6. on consideration of the facts, i find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

Judgment:
1. The assessee in this case claimed Modvat credit oh inputs titled as "dog bone", "corner piece" and "resiglass tape". The Assistant Commissioner allowed their claim. Against this order, the department approached the Collector (Appeals) who in the impugned order upheld the. order of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. In this appeal from the Revenue argued by Shri K.M. Patwari reliance had been placed oh the following judgments in stating that Modvat credit had been wrongly extended to the assessee :-Collector of Central Excise v. Ganesh Steel Industries -1992 (60) E.L.T. 271.Paro Food Products v. CCE 3. The assessee requested for adjournment on the ground that they are opting for the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. I find that the disposal of this case is not related to this scheme and therefore, proceeded to decide the case.

4. The assessee had declared "dog bone" and "nomex paper" under Heading 5516. In the Bill of Entry also the same description had been showed.

The Customs authorities, however, had changed the classification to Heading 56.03. The Collector was correct in granting the benefit to the assessee since the goods were covered by the prior declaration. As regards "resiglass tape", the declaration classified the product under Heading 8548, whereas, the classification showed in the B/E was under sub-heading 7019.39. In a number of judgments the Tribunal has held that difference in Tariff heading would not result in denial of credit.

This has been so held in-Tribunal judgment in the case of Maxxon India Ltd. v. CCE -1997 (95) E.L.T. 532.

5. The case law cited by the JDR is not relevant inasmuch as all the three inputs were duly declared.

6. On consideration of the facts, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.