9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (T)]. Sunrise Zinc Ltd., Cuncolin, Goa, was, at the relevant time, engaged in the manufacture of electrolytic zinc and copper. It took Modvat credit under Rule 57T the additional duty of customs paid on quantities of di (2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (hereinafter referred as the chemical ) which it imported. The use of this product, it is stated, is necessary in the manufacture of electro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had said in his statement explains that the goods which were seized were taken out of the process because of the low efficiency . A notice was thereupon issued to the appellant demanding duty on the quantity of chemicals cleared by it without payment of duty on the ground that it has been repacked and such repacking amounted to manufacture as provided in Note 2 to Chapter 29 in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure. If this is correct, it would mean that the product has been used by the appellant in the manufacture and spent it in the process and ceased to be usable in the process. The question of recovery of credit therefore would not arise. 4. The departmental representative emphasises the finding in the Commissioner s order. 5. It is relevant to mention at this stage that the act of taking of cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its original stage, hence the product would not be suitable in that stage for use in the process in which it is to be put to use. It has to be restored to its original stage. It is in effect being used to the extent that it is so used in the manufacture of the goods. There is therefore no basis for demanding recovery of credit. 6. It is however clear that the appellant has either restored the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December last year to clarify this position, no clarification has yet been given. The Counsel for the appellant states that he has not been furnished any instruction. The duty of Rs. 2.44 lakhs therefore has to be confirmed. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, we do not find any justification for reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
