ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant issued five gate passes in October, 1991 and January and February, 1992 in which the goods manufactured and cleared on payment of duty were described as round bar classifiable under Heading 72.12 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the order impugned in the appeal, credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods have been disallowed on the ground that in the declaration under Rule 57G goods classifiable under Heading 72.13 were not mentioned by the appellant.
2. Advocate for the appellant contends that Heading 72.13 was entered by mistake by its clerk and that the goods manufactured were actually classifiable under Heading 72.14 which were mentioned in the Rule 57G declaration. From a perusal of the papers I find that the appellant had not at any time taken a clear and categorical stand that it did not have the machinery to manufacture goods classifiable under Heading 72.13, which according to the advocate for the appellant is different from the machinery required for goods classifiable under Heading 72.14. He says that he will be able to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant at the relevant time did not manufacture items classified under Heading 72.13 and did not have machinery to manufacture these goods. The Departmental Representative has no objection to this.
3. Appeal accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside. The Assistant Commissioner shall, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence as indicated above within a month from the receipt of this order, pass orders according to law.