TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd., Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) were 100% E.O.U. since 1991 up to its bonding. They paid duties of the Customs and CVD on imported/ indigenous capital goods on 12-5-1995/23-1-1995. They have filed a declaration on 18-1-1996 for availment of Modvat credit on capital goods to the extent of CVD. The declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the appellants are not entitled for taking Modvat credit on capital goods. 2. Shri V.J. Sankaram, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Smt. Shoba L. Chary, ld. JCDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Ld. JCDR reiterated the views of the Department and contended that the violation of mandatory requirement does not entitle the appellants for the Modvat credit. 4. Ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e premises of the 100% E.O.U. The Customs duty was paid on the capital goods after de-bonding. Strictly speaking the time limit under rule 57T and the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, cover normal cases where the unit receives capital goods and intends to take Modvat credit of the duty paid by them. Therefore the case of a 100% E.O.U. should be treated on a different footing. In other words, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
