9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Light Diesel Oil (LDO) used by the respondent in relation to the manufacture of the final product, namely, brass sheets and circuits. In doing so, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner denying the Modvat credit for the subject material. In coming to the said conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) followed a Tribunal decision in Collector of Central Excise, Surat v. Batliboi & Co. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 696]. 2. In the appeal, it is contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct as the subject input, namely LDO is not covered as an input under Rule 57A. A reference have been made to Notification 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1994 wherein the inputs as well as the final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 57A. Even as regards the restriction in terms of Notification No. 5/94 (N.T.), dated 1-3-1994 specifying the inputs and final products to which the provisions of Rule 57A would be applicable, it was the contention of Shri Sawhney that LDO is not excluded for Modvat purposes as per the contents of the Table appearing under the Notification. What is excluded under the said Notification is High Speed Diesel Oil and not Light Diesel Oil which has got different properties and uses. He also stated that this very issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in Appeal No. E/552/97-NB when the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had taken a decision similar to one ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s come within the scope of Explanation (d) whereas the present case falls under Explanation (c) which use is undoubtedly confirmed as correct as per the admitted position in the order-in-original. Further, it has been stated that in exactly similar situation relating to the use of LDO for melting brass scrap for the making of brass circles and sheets, another Bench had taken a view in favour of the assessee holding that such LDO is an input within the scope of Explanation (c) under Rule 57A, as it stood at the relevant time. I have no reason to take a different stand in the matter. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the findings reached by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said order is upheld. The department's appeal is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
