TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 2. Each of the appellants is engaged in ship breaking and takes credit of the additional duty of customs paid on the importation of the ship, utilising that credit towards payment of duty on articles obtained as a result of breaking it. The tariff provides a heading in each of the chapters in Section XV, (covering base metals and articles of such metals) for goods of that chapter obtained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Board clarified that in the absence of any entry in the tariff describing the act of obtaining goods, other than those of Section XV of the tariff, as manufacture, they were not excisable and therefore the provisions of Section 57CC will not apply. On receipt of this clarification, each of the appellants reversed the entries that it had made in the Modvat account. 4. This resulted in issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground, and on the further ground that the Board's clarification will only apply in pending cases and the question referred to in Board's clarification was not pending. 6. An amount deposited under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC is clearly not Modvat credit. Modvat credit is the duty paid by a manufacturer on excisable goods, or capital goods, available for utilisation towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that a claim for its refund was not made. In the absence of anything to the contrary in the law either specifically or by implication, the appellants were entitled to do what they did. 7. Nor is there any basis for the reliance by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the reference in the Board's circular. The circular clarified what, in any case, is evidently the legal position. A distinction cannot t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
