2001 (8) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alidity of the impugned order dated 12-1-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original dated 29-7-98 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the modvat credit of full amount to the respondents. 2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of steel rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. They availed modvat c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Commissioner, however, did not agree with their version and confirmed the duty demand of both the amounts referred to above on the respondents through the order in original dated 29-7-98. This order of the Assistant Commissioner had been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order by holding that the Notification No. 14/97-CE(NT) did not cover the RFO and as such the credi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. Since the RFO on which the modvat credit had been claimed by the respondents does not stand covered by the Notification No. 14/97-CE which restricts the claim of the modvat credit in respect of the goods produced or manufactured in India to the extent of excise duty calculated at the rate of 10% ad valorem, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X