VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) In this case Modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on Analog D.C. Drive on the ground that these were not declared under Rule 57T(1) and the classification shown in the declaration was under sub -heading No. 9032.80 whereas these were classifiable under Heading 8504.00. It was also observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the manufacturer of the Analog D.C. Drive as declared was different from the manufacturer from whom these goods were received.

(3.) Shri P.C. Jain ld. Counsel pleaded that if the classification is given wrong in the declaration it cannot disentitle them Modvat credit. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Taj Forgings and Stampings reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 168. Shri Jain pleads that there is no dispute that the goods are dutiable. These were received in the factory of the appellant and were utilised for the purpose as being declared by them in the declaration.