2002 (9) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of Philips Carbon Blacks Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, to take credit, in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E, of the duty paid on the carbon black feed stock that it used as an input by its manufacturer, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., subsequent to its clearance. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... od of limitation because none of the factors specified in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A was applicable. 3. Relying on this earlier order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner s order and allowed the credit. This appeal by the Commissioner questions that finding. 4. The first ground in the appeal is that the Tribunal s earlier order is incorrect and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n that the notice issued to the respondent did not cite this ground for denying the credit. The sole ground in the notice was the applicability of the provisions of Rule 57E(3). Counsel for the respondent is right when he says, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641, that a new case cannot be made out by the Commissioner. We lea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X