2007 (1) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. When the stay application was heard, we found that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we proceed with the appeal. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of auto components. It received certain inputs and took Modvat credit on them. There is no dispute that the credit taken is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome up before the Tribunal in many cases like that BHEL Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (50) RLT 208, CCE v. Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 300 and the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. The submission is that the issue remain settled in favour of the assessee and the present appeal is required to be allowed. 4. Ld. Counsel would also submit that the same inputs continu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... find that the above referred decisions of the Tribunal make it clear that inputs that are held in stock by an assessee, even if their value is written of, do not attract requirement for reversal of Modvat credit. In fact, what has happened in the present case is only a revaluation of inputs. Otherwise they are being used for manufacture. Revaluation of assets, in no way, affects Modvat credit take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X