9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri R. Raghavan, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondents herein were availing CENVAT credit on the inputs received from M/s. Orchid Health Care and manufacturing P or P medicaments. On verification of availment of credit by them on the inputs supplied by 100% EOU, it was observed that the assessee had been availing credit at a flat rate of 16% adv. out of the total duty paid on the inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) held that the respondents were eligible to credit in the light of the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 800. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned JCDR that as per the larger Bench decision credit can be availed only upto 16% adv. but the respondents have availed it in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove larger Bench decision while holding that the respondents are eligible to credit. The working out/re-determination of the extent of credit admissible to the respondents is an exercise to be carried out by the adjudicating authority for which purpose we remit the case to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner after setting aside the impugned order. He shall pass fresh orders on the amount of credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 951 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. Therefore, requantification of duty payable within the normal period of limitation alone is required to be carried out by the adjudicating authority to whom we have already remitted the case. No requantification is called for, for the period beyond the normal period of limitation. The cross objection is, therefore, allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
