2007 (4) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr(A)/159/VDR-I/2005, dated 16-6-05 which upheld the order of the original authority No. Demand/22/2005, dated 28-2-2005. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are follows: (a)     The appellant availed Cenvat credit CVD paid on inputs at the time of import. Because of qualit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he context of erstwhile Rule 57F (4) and also the benefit of the Circular F.No. 345/2/2000-TRU, dated 29-8-2000 (thereof para 8). He also relies on the order of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur-I v. RFH Metal Castings (P) Ltd. - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 194 (Tri-Del). 5. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and adds that the Circulars referred to by the ld. Ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as such and does not restrict that the benefit is available only to inputs procured from domestic source. In this context, para 8 of the Board's Circular dated 29-8-2000 is reproduced below: "8. Explanation to Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57AB refers to payment of appropriate duty of excise if the inputs or capital goods are removed as such from a factory. It has been pointed out that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X