TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal relates to the availability of the Modvat credit to the appellants and seems to be prima facie covered by the ratio of law laid down in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5, by the Apex Court. Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed. 2. The appeal itself, in my view, can be disposed of on merits. 3. I have heard ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to the introduction of second proviso to Rule 57G i.e. prior to 29-6-1995, a manufacturer was entitled to withdraw the said credit at any time without there being limitation on such withdrawal. On 29-6-1995, second proviso to this rule was introduced by substituting the then existing proviso and the newly introduced proviso read thus: Provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit which had accrued to them on receipt of goods and which they initially took within limitation, especially when they were denied the refund of the duty. The provisions of second proviso to Rule 57G were not attracted to their case as it was not for the first time that they took the credit for which period of six months was to apply. They had infact already earned Modvat credit, but in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material to be used by him in the production of the excisable products, immediately. As observed above, the appellants have every right to take re-credit of the amount in dispute as the second proviso to Rule 57G of the Rules, is not attracted to their case and more so, when refund in respect of that amount had been denied to them. 7. In the light of the discussions made above, the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
