2009 (7) TMI 1119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,40,113/- stands confirmed against the appellants, who are engaged in processing of fabrics, by denying them the benefit of deemed Modvat credit availed by them during the period July, 2002 to February, 2003 on the ground that such deemed credit was not available in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 29/96-C.E., inasmuch as they have taken Modvat credit in respect of Light Diesel Oil (LDO .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e manufacture of the said final products. 3. The appellant s contention is that LDO used as fuel is not a consumable covered by Notification No. 29/96. If that be so, condition 4 of notification cannot be held to be violated. 4. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by Tribunal s judgment in case of Sky Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 245 (Tri.-Mum. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the order, the same would amount as if no credit was taken. In the present case, the appellant have reversed the credit of Rs. 16.11 lakhs availed on LCD. 6. In view of the above fact, we find no justification for confirmation of demand against them by denying the benefit of notification in question. 7. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court) - - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X