9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As the appellants have prima facie case in their favour, I allow the stay petition unconditionally and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : - 2.2 The appellant M/s. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., Ranchi, a Govt. of India Undertaking, manufacturer amongst others, heavy mac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty leviable thereon in terms of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. 2.4 Relying upon the said certificate the appellant cleared the impugned goods under invoice nos. 2408 to 2410 all dated 18-6-1997 at nil rate of duty after payment of an amount Rs. 5,29,413/- equal to 8% of the price of the said goods by adjustment in the RG-23A part II account under entry sl. no. 201, dated 18-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as payment of Central Excise duty. Since it was the amount of Modvat credit the said assessee reversed while clearing the impugned goods at nil rate of duty which is as per rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The notice also contends that availment of exemption under Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 appears to be wrong for the reasons indicated in Annexure A annexed there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds in terms of Rule 57CC. Ultimately, it transpired that the appellants were to pay duty of 13% ad valorem, which came to Rs. 8,60,295/-. Since the appellant had already made payment of Rs. 5,29,413/- by debiting the Modvat amount, they paid the balance amount of duty. The Revenue's contention is that the debit entry in terms of Rule 57CC cannot be adjusted against the subsequent duty liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
