9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal relates to Modvat credit. The appellants manufacture perfumery base under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; a part of their finished product was being cleared to 100% Export Oriented Unit. The Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on the final products. It was also held that the amending Notification of 13/92 cannot have retrospective effect. 2. Shri R.J. Parakh, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter now stands settled in their favour by a series of Tribunal decisions and cited the case of Orissa Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 585 (Tribunal). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant do not relate any exemption Notification. In the present case clearance to EOU are made under Notification 123/81. The case law related to situation under Rule 191B and 191BB of export under bond without payment of duty. It was also contended that there is nothing to suggest that the amending Notification under Rule 57C has any retrospective effect. 4. We have carefully considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so laid down that where the final product is exempt from duty no proforma credit is permissible. The Department had in the context of proforma credit and the aforesaid Rule clarified that the bar on credit did not apply to goods exported in bond. Further in the J.K. Synthetics decision the Tribunal had observed that the scheme relat- ing to exports without payment of duty envisaged in the Rules 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
