9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. One of the inputs used in the manufacture of biscuits is vanaspati. Under Modvat scheme, a Notification No. 177/86-C.E. was issued under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. Vanaspati falls under Chapter 15. In the said Notification No. 177/86 in items of the proviso to sub-rule (2), it is stated that the credit of specific duty paid in respect of the inputs viz. vanaspati products (other than vegetable products produced or manufactured in a Free Trade Zone or by 100% Export Oriented Undertaking) falling under sub-heading No. 1504.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and used in the manufacture of the final products in any place in India shall be restricted to the extent of Rs. 900/- per tonne or the actual duty paid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stt. Collector by one of the Orders-in-Original at page 54 rejected the contentions raised by the appellants and confirmed the show cause-cum-demand notice. Appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) who by the order dated 2-11-1994 rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that the Asstt. Collector has correctly treated the amount paid through account maintained under RG 23B register as not constituting the duties of excise. He also sought to draw support of the wordings of Notification No. 177/86 which stipulated that the credit allowed in respect of such vegetable oils would be restricted to Rs. 900/-. He also held that the remaining amount of duty payable in effect having been set-off, or considered as discharged from c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per M.T. and therefore he attacks the show cause notice, findings recorded by the Asstt. Collector in his Orders-in-Original and finding recorded by the Collector (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal. 5. As against this, the ld. DR Shri Ramtake argues that he would adopt the reasonings made by the authorities below and also states that the duty paid means the duty paid under PLA only and that too actual duty paid and he invited my attention to the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Notification No. 177/86 which clearly mentions duty actually paid or whichever is less. He states that Sec. AA relating to Modvat and Sec. AAA relating to money credit or entirely independent to each other. Both cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment towards central excise by the lower authorities. It is argued specifically by Shri Ramtake that one cannot co-relate between money credit and Modvat scheme. I am afraid I cannot agree with it. 8. If we look into Notification No. 177/86 it mentions the restriction of the credit at the rate of Rs. 900/- and why should it get restricted. That means the authorities knew about the existence of Section AA and Section AAA. Both have to be read in conjunction with each other and in an harmonious way. The credit of duty paid on the inputs which utilised in the manufacture of the final product is restricted only to Rs. 900/- and not Rs. 1500/- which the appellants had paid. This only shows the fallacious nature of the arguments made by the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
