TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants were required to pay on the final products. It would also be discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Rule 57 A. As such the Order-In-Original is not sustainable and the appellants are eligible to the modvat credit - denial of credit not justified - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/925/06 - A/90746/16/SMB - Dated:- 21-9-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri H.M. Dixit, Asst. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against order-in-appeal No. PI/320/05 dated 31.08.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records it transpires tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1 and 4.2 of the order-in-appeal which I reproduce:- 4.1 I have carefully considered the impugned Order-in-Original, grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellants during Personal hearing. I find that the appellant had claimed the classification of the casting- manufactured by them under heading 'no. 7616.90 .attracting Nil rate of Central Excise duty, however, the department initially .did not accept the same. In the process of litigation the Hon ble High .Court modified the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 26.4.93 directing the appellants to furnish a Bank Guarantee of ₹ 50,00,006/- and to deposit balance amount of ₹ 5,43,825.4 7 and permitted the appellant to make the cash deposit in such amount as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of allowing modvat credit had reached finality Vide the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Supra ; cognizance of which has not been taken by the adjudicating authority as pointed out by the appellants at the time of personal hearing. 4.2 Further I find that the provisions of Modvat were embodied in the Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, which provided for allowing modvat credit on the inputs used in the final products charged to duty. In this case I find that undisputedly the duty has been paid on the final products manufactured by the appellants; though the products have subsequently been held as exempted. Further I find that even if the product was classified as exempted; the appellants were forbidden from claiming refund by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
