ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), made in Order-in- Appeal No. 327/94, dated 7-4-1994 whereunder he confirmed the order of the A.C.
2. The appellant manufactures various types of radiators for motor vehicles classifiable under sub-heading No. 8708.00. They were availing Mod-vat credit and they have filed necessary declarations under Rule 57G. They bring inputs “unwrought copper bars, unwrought zinc bars, copper cathodes, tin ingots and lead ingots” which are the inputs for which permission was granted by the A.C. and they were sent to processors under the then existing Rules 57(2) and 57F(4). For manufacturing of brass coils, brass sheets and sholders which are used in the manufacture of radiators. In the application for permission under the said Rule 57F(2) the appellant stated that the process carried on was inputs processed by the processors to get the intermediate products and also declared that the said process would result in losses to their inputs and the expected loss would be about 5%. In other words, there is shortage found in the hands of processors between the quantity of import sent by the appellant and received by the appellant from processors. A show cause notice was issued on 1-3-1993 demanding duty of Rs. 58,729.10 on the allegation that certain percentage of inputs get evaporated and those losses were inevitable and varies from each person to person depending upon the plant and machinery. The assessee in their letter dated 10-4-1993 invited the attention of the authorities to the letter of Ministry of Finance issued on 15-1-1988 for the proposition that duty paid on inputs should not be denied on the ground that part of the input is contained in invisible losses. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) rejected the contentions. The A.C. in the order had stated that there had been abnormal loss and also generally such loss could only be 1% approx. The Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the same.
3. In the appeal, before me, the representative of the company invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/15/E/94-Bom arising out of the Order-in-Appeal Nos. GS/943/B1/93 and GS/944/B1/93 dated 7-10-1993 wherein the Tribunal on the same identical set of facts had allowed the appeal of the assessee company. Hence following the said judgment, I allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order, granting consequential relief if any, permitted by law.
4. Appeal allowed.