2001 (12) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. -  The present applicants are manufacturers of footwears. They availed themselves of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the footwear and cleared the footwear on payment of Central Excise duty. Part of the Central Excise duty payment was from the credit taken on inputs. The duty paid was also recovered from the buyers o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e strongly contested the findings and they have submitted that it was a manufacturer's option as to whether to pay duty on the goods manufactured by him or avail himself of exemption. The appellant in the present case chose to pay duty. It is their contention that once Central Excise duty is paid on the goods, Modvat credit automatically flowed on the inputs used. During the hearing of the case, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent case is in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, that demand being not a duty amount, grant of stay under Section 35F was not permissible. 5. In the present case the appellants paid duty on the footwear in question and recovered the same from the buyers. What was paid and what was recovered was duty of excise. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the duty demand no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X