9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of carburetors and parts thereof. They were clearing the said goods to their sister unit located at Pune. Duty, Basic as well as Special Excise was being paid by them on the goods so transferred to their sister unit on the basis of previous year s balance sheet. Subsequently, on re-conciliation of the cost, add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rule 57E. The credit of basic excise duty of Rs. 7.48 lakhs was extended them but credit of SED of Rs. 67,843/- was denied by both the lower authorities. Hence, the present appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, I find that differential SED paid by the appellants is for the period prior to 1994 March. During the said period the SED was leviable and in fact was being paid by the appellant s sist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had already been allowed under Rule 57A. It is only that the said credit is varied subsequently on account of more payment of duty by the inputs manufacturer. As such, it can be safely concluded that the provisions of Rule 57E are not directly linked with the Rule 57A in the present tense but the same are related to Rule 57A in the past tense, when it uses the expression allowed . As such, eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
