TATA YODOGAWA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) pression "nickel" would also cover "nickel -magnesium alloy".

(3.) I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I am of the view that the appellants are covered by the declaration of 22nd March, 1986 as also by the declaration filed in October, 1986 on the basis of the submissions made by the ld. Advocate as already set out above. For the purposes of tariff, "nickel -magnesium alloy" will be covered by "nickel" as well in view of Section Note 3 of Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There is no dispute about correct declaration of heading in the subsequent declaration in October, 1986. Therefore, intention of the appellant in making the Modvat credit declaration is clear. Similarly, in view of the Assistant Collector's own finding regarding description of inputs for March, 1986 declaration, it would cover the input in question and would settle the dispute in favour of the appellants. The Assistant Collector's observation in discarding the said declaration on the ground of Tariff heading/sub -heading is of no consequence in view of settled position of law by a series of decisions of the Tribunal, e.g., in the case of Kissan Products v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 521.