2004 (7) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants. The lower authorities have disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that during the period of availment of Modvat credit e.g. from 1-1-98 to 6-1-98, the appellants were enjoying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No 16/97-C.E. 2. The learned Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acility and having done so wrongly, were bound to reverse the Modvat credit even if they did not utilise it. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that initially the appellants had been availing the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification No 16/97. The benefit of this exemption notification was to be no more available to them from 8-1-98 as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , as the Modvat credit had been taken by them as per the Modvat Credit Rules. Moreover, the credit so taken by the appellants was not be utilised by them for the discharge of duty on their goods till they crossed the SSI exemption limit under Notification No. 16/97-C.E. This view find support from the ratio of law laid down in Dome Bell Investment v. CCE, Meerut and CCE, Hyderabad v. Aggarwal Rubb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X