TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals). 2. The appellants have been directed to reverse the Modvat credit of Rs. 93,091.00 (Rupees ninety-three thousand ninety-one) and of Rs. 24,850.00 (Rupees twenty-four thousand eight hundred and fifty) on the findings of violation of the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they have not received back the waste arising at job-worker's factory during the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reversed for such losses. 3. I have also heard Shri A.K. Mondal, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue who supports the impugned Order by relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 315 (Tribunal). 4. I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the short receipt of Modvatable inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arisen in the hands of the job-worker, the same being invisible. Such invisible loss is covered by the provisions of Rule 57D and the appellants cannot be asked to reverse the Modvat credit taken on the inputs. 5. I also find that a recent decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.Ex., Madras v. Bush Boake Allen (I) Ltd. reported in 2001 (47) RLT-712 (CEGAT-Che.) has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
