9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants are challenging the impugned order-in-appeal whereby part of the Modvat credit availed, has been denied to them. Heard both sides. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- The appellants, M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., received Diet Pepsi Concentrate falling under Heading No. 2108.10 of the Central Excise Tariff; under Invoice No. 887, dated 17-5-2000 from M/s. Pep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng No. 2108.10 were not specified in the said Rule, at the point of taking credit the appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 23-5-2001 for denying the Cenvat credit representing the amount of Special Excise Duty. The Deputy Commissioner disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 50,054/- and the said order was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals), since after 1-3-2000 vide Notification No. 22/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification of each component namely basic and special, therefore, remains intact. It is another matter that, in terms of express provisions contained in Rule 57F(1)(ii), the amount of reversal has to cover both the components. However, for that reason the entire reversed amount cannot become a payment under the First Schedule. The identity of each category of payment remains intact. When the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paying documents [1996 (84) E.L.T. 44 (Tribunal)] do not provide any assistance to them. So far as Sr. No. (1) is concerned, the rate of reversal in this case is based on the rate applicable at the point of entry of inputs. As regards Sr. No. (2), the credit amount shown on the incoming document is only split into two components, without changing the rate and credit is permitted only in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
