9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 29-1-1988. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants took MODVAT credit for duty of Rs. 1,890.20 and Rs. 1,599.60 in their RG 23A Part II register for the reason that after the receipt of the inputs in their factory there was later variations in the duty payment on the goods and to the extent further duty was paid by the manufacturer who manufactured t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs resulting in the recovery of any duty from the manufacturer. The lower authority has held that since the appellants case was not covered by any of these two situations, they were not entitled to the adjustment of credit of duty paid in addition to what was originally paid on account of the error detected at the hands of the manufacturer who supplied the inputs. This Rule, the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 890.28 and Rs. 1,599.60 in their RG 23A Part II register on the certification by the manufacturer that they paid the same subsequently by applying the correct rate of duty on the inputs. The lower authorities by applying Rule 57E rejected the claim of the appellant. This Tribunal in the case of Indo National Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.), referred to supra, which is simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the input either by operation of law or by otherwise and in the present case it cannot be disputed that there was no variation in regard to the duty payable for the input in question and the same continued to be at 20% right through. Merely because the supplier committed a mistake in not clearing the input by paying 20% duty and paid only 12% duty and subsequently paid the differential dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case as held by lower authority is not applicable, when the inputs in question suffered the correct duty as per law based on the classification of goods as originally done and the same amount has also been taken credit by the appellant and the credit therefore under Rule 57A has to be allowed under the MODVAT Scheme. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
