2006 (2) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted against the denial of Modvat credit of about Rs. 1.4 lakhs. 2. I have perused the record and heard the learned SDR. The appellant has not appeared for hearing but has filed a written submission. The same is also being taken into account. 3. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel, bars, rods etc. It was availing Modvat credit on "inputs". While .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that unutilized credit had to lapse and could not be carried forward under any circumstances since the input in question had been utilized for production of exempted good 4. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that there is no bar to carrying forward of the Modvat credit. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wed credit due on inputs and final products in stock at the time when the goods became dutiable. No credit is due in regard to inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. This being the legal position, the appellant has no case. The decisions relied upon by the appellant also have no relevance to the issue in dispute. The appeal fails and is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X