2007 (11) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. There is no application for adjournment. 2. After hearing the learned Authorized Representative (DR) and on perusal of the record, I find that the issue involved in this case is availment of Modvat credit on left out exempted goods on a subsequent date when the bulbs exceeding 60W became non-dutiable w.e.f. 24-7-91 in budget declaration of 1991-92 as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttributable to inputs intended to be used for the manufacture of dutiable final products and the remaining credit was left as related to inputs to be used in exempted goods. Since, in the guidelines issued by the CBEC, there was a provision for final adjustment after actual use of the inputs, the appellant finding that final consumption of inputs was more than what they have availed credit for use .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have been allowed was varied subsequently due to any reason resulting in payment of refund, or recovery of more duty from the manufacture or importer, which is not in the instant case". 3. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that credit was allowed after verification of the evidences the Commissioner (Appeals). In any event, it is well-settled that the credit cannot be denied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X