TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pine oil. They procured certain inputs and took Modvat credit on those inputs. A part of pine oil manufactured by the appellants was cleared by them in terms of notification No. 191/87-C.E., dated 4-8-1987 following the Chapter X procedure. The Department alleged that pine oil was cleared by the appellants without payment of duty in terms of exemption Notification No. 191/87- C.E., dated 4-8-1987 and therefore, Modvat credit of duty on that portion of input which was used in the manufacture of this quantity of pine oil was not available to the appellants. The lower authorities accordingly, confirmed the demand. 3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... talks of exemption whereas Rule 192 covering the movement of the goods under Chapter X procedure stipulates the word `remission and since the words `exemption and `remission are not the same and since their case was covered by Rule 192 and since they were required to follow Chapter X procedure, their case shall be the case of remission and hence the denial of Modvat credit was not warranted in their case. 4. Shri P. Das, the learned SDR submits that the appellants availed the benefit under Notification No. 191/87-C.E., dated 4-8-1987; that the notification exempts the goods, therefore, the learned SDR submitted that the word for interpretation in this notification is exemption and not remission . He submitted that no doubt the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure fell under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was also argued before me that the movement under Chapter X procedure does not absolutely absolve the party from the liability to duty on the contrary, it was argued that in case the goods are not properly accounted for, the duty becomes payable. This contention of the appellants appears to be quite reasonable. Now it is not a question of hypothetical situation, the question remains whether the appellants brought any evidence on record that they paid duty on the pine oil. In the absence of any evidence of payment of duty, I do not see as to how the appellants will become entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs. The learned SDR cited and relied upon the larger Bench decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
