9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner for recovery of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,42,91,086/- found to have been wrongly availed by the appellants during July-December, 1992. That order had been made in adjudication of a show cause notice (SCN) which had alleged that the assessee had wrongly availed Modvat credit to the aforesaid extent for the aforesaid period on PVC film/sheet (CH 39.20) cleared on payment of duty (despite its being exempt from duty under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. as amended) and captively used in the manufacture of Rexine (artificial leather) cloth (CH 59.03) and further that they had suppressed facts so as to utilise such credit by circumventing the restrictions under Notification No. 177/86-C.E. (as amended) whereunder Modvat credit on i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid on PVC resin could be utilized for payment of duty on the final product to the extent of Rs. 5.50 per sq. metre only under Notification No. 177/86-C.E. (as amended). The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-quantify the demand of duty on this basis. The party has, in the present application, raised a grievance to the effect that it was not necessary for the Bench to issue such a direction as there was no proposal in the SCN or in the Commissioner s order to deny Modvat credit on PVC resin in excess of Rs. 5.50 per sq. metre of Rexine cloths. According to him, the above direction is an error apparent from the record and the same requires to be rectified by deleting the last two sentences from para (10) of our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls in the manufacture of Leather Cloth (5903) declared 3904 materials as input for PVC sheets/films as to circumvent restrictions under Notification No. 177/86 . The party, however, did not deny the aforesaid allegation of the department, in their reply to the SCN. Later on, they found that the adjudicating authority applied the provisions of Notification No. 177/86-C.E. (as amended) to their case, which they challenged in their appeal before the Tribunal. Their challenge on the point is contained in para (D) of the Grounds of Appeal . It is this challenge which inter alia we have dealt with in our final order and have decided upon in para (10) as under : At the same time, the credit available of the duty paid on PVC granules used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
