Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 31 August, 2000
2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed declaration in respect of inputs declaring MAZU-400 and Megnaflock L.T. 27, which are the same inputs under the different brand names. He submits that in respect of Chemocide, this input was received in the factory on 1.10.94 and the declaration was filed on 25.10.94 and credit was taken on 30.10.94 i.e. after filing the declaration. In respect of Phosphoric Acid, his contention is that there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the invoice, under which this input was received, was not pre-authenticated. He submits that Rule 57 G is now amended by notification no. 7/99 dated 9.2.99 and this amended rule provides that no credit shall be denied on the ground that the documents under which the goods were received, do not contain all the particulars required to be contained therein under the rules and in respect of declaration, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the declaration filed does not contain all the details. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575, after considering the Board's Circular No. 441/7/89-CX dt. 23.2.99, wherein it was clarified that the amended provisions of Rule 57 G will be applicable in the pending case and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. He, therefore, prays that in the present case also the matter may be remanded.