ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This appeal on hearing Shri Alok Arora, Advocate and Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR was admitted and was also taken up for final hearing.
2. The appellants manufacture Rubber Conveyer Belts. In their declaration under Rule 57G filed on 2-6-1995 they declared “Dipped Nylon Fabric” as an input and showed its classification under sub-heading 5905.20. In doing so they apparently followed similar declaration earlier made by them in July, 1994 in which the same input was shown as falling under the same sub-heading. However, the structure of Chapter 59 underwent a change on 16-3-1995 whereby such goods which were earlier classified under sub-heading 5905.20, now stood classified under sub-heading 5906.99. In July, 1995, the appellants received a consignment of such inputs showing correct classification i.e. subheading 5906.99. The show cause notice dated 1-4-1996 made the allegation that Modvat credit on these goods were taken without a declaration have been made in their regard under Rule 57G. The Assistant Commissioner on the same observation denied the Modvat credit, although, case law was cited before him wherein it was held that credit was admissible even if the declaration as to the Tariff heading was different in the invoice from that shown in the declaration. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions made. It is obvious on perusal of the record that assessee had failed to notice the change in the classification, although the goods remained the same. Apart from the law cited by the assessee before the Assistant Collector the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Rattan Industries is also applicable. In this case the identity of the goods were established but there was difference in the tariff heading as shown in the invoice from the description shown in the declaration. Since the facts are identical this appeal is allowed.