2000 (4) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of credit under Rule 57F (3) was concerned but had remanded the matter to the original authority on the limited aspects of limitation and requantification of the amounts. The amount has since been requantified vide order-in-original No. 53/99 dated 19-7-1999 and the amounts quantified is the same as had been upheld in the earlier order-in-original. This appeal is against the order-in-appeal and the attendant order-in-original dated 22-7-1992 and challenges the very basis on which the said demand had been raised and upheld namely that whether the Modvat credit taken against the inputs namely Sudex/HDPE bags and Caustic Soda which was used in clearing Calcined Alumina for export during April 89 to December 89 was correctly utilised whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to the words same or identical but has a wider meaning. Therefore, the credit has been rightly utilised for clearances of Aluminium because Aluminium and Calcined Alumina are products of same family, the former being an intermediary product in the manufacture of the latter. In this respect, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Falma Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. as in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 658 (T) wherein the Tribunal had held that in Rule 57F(3), as it then existed, the words similar is not to mean same or identical but has a wider meaning and the Tribunal had followed the ratio of the decision in the case of Hindustan Motors v. CCE as in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 216 (T) wherein a similar situation was considered. Ld. Advocate als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f this would apply to the present case. 4. Heard ld. DR who reiterates the paras-4 5 of the order-in-appeal impugned where it has been held Calcined Alumina being a different product from Aluminium, the credit taken on one cannot be used for payment of duty on the other. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case and we find that the matter is no longer res integra. In view of the above noted decisions, the law with respect to the interpretation of the words similar as it then existed in Rule 57F(3) is now well settled. The words similar cannot be restricted to mean same or identical . Instead, when a wider meaning is given to the words similar it will encompass the goods broadly falling wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X