2007 (2) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the appellants despite notice. The respondent is represented by SDR. 2. I have examined the records and heard learned SDR, who has reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order. 3. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the appellants were entitled to 100% credit of the duty paid on inputs received in their factory and used in the manufacture of their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew was accepted by the lower appellate authority and the appellants are aggrieved by the same. 4. The provision of law is very clear. The appellants were entitled to take input duty credit only to the extent of 95% during the above period. They were aware of this limitation and accordingly they took credit only to the extent of 95% of the duty amount shown in the original invoices issued by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X