1995 (7) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri Sanjeev Sachdeva, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh confirming the demand for duty. 2. I have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, advocate for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva Departmental Representative for the department. 3. The appellant was a manufacturer of forged products. For this pu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t been taken from the Assistant Collector. Shri Gopal Prasad points out that the appellant had been granted permission under Rule 57F(2) in January 1988. There was therefore at most a procedural interaction which should not come in the way of the appellant availing modvat credit. He relies upon the decision of the South Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Maschmeijer Aromatics (I) Ltd. v. Collector .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore the finding of this Tribunal in the case cited and especially the observations in paragraph 4 would apply to the facts of this case. I also note that Rule 57F(2) at the relevant time did not require prior permission to be obtained but only provided that permission had to be granted. There is therefore a strong case for saying that the permission subsequently granted for the identical inputs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X