9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of sub-heading as provided under Notification No. 175/86 and also can avail Modvat facilities under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of other item falling under another sub-heading simultaneously. On the issue involved in this case, the citation in favour is Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue), Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi, vide their circular No. 38/88 (F. No. 261 /76/11 /87-CX. 8, dated 8-8-1988 have clarified that as long as it can be proved through reasonable accounting system that credit in respect of only those inputs has allowed which are used in the final products chargeable to duty, there should be no bar in allowing the full exemption as well as Modvat facility on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain products and the benefit of duty free clearances under this exemption scheme in respect of certain other products simultaneously. This view of the Department was formed on the basis of interpretation of the notification and Board s clarifications contained in Board s Circular No. 38/88 (F. No. 261/76/11/87-CX. 8) dated 8-8-1988. The Department had contended that in terms of Board s Circular when there are two parallel notifications granting full exemption as also providing effective rate of duty on the same product full exemption and Modvat credit can be availed simultaneously provided separate account is maintained for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted category right from raw materials stage to finished stage. The matter cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put forth by the Department in the grounds of appeal. The ld. Consultant for the respondent submitted that their case is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swaraj Paint Industries v. CCE reported in 1991 ( 52) E.L.T. 594, in the case of Abilash Rubber Products v. CCE reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 and in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759. The Department, however, relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 751, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 212,1988 (36) E.L.T. 346 and 1988 (36) E.L.T. 174 (Tri.) = 1988 (18) ECR 4. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides, perused the evidence on record as well as the decisions cited and relied upon by both the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the same item. As such, in terms of the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Swaraj Paint Industries v. CCE, Cochin reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 594 and in the case of Abilash Rubber Products Another v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168. The Department should have allowed their request. The Collector (Appeals) has, therefore, erred in rejecting their appeal." The Tribunal further held, We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that ld. Counsel is correct. The matters are apparently covered by the two judgments cited by him above. Hence, in view of the ratio thereof we set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeals. I fully agree with the findings of the Tribunal quoted above and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
