9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of said S.No. 182 of the notification, they were required to Reverse the MODVAT Credit of duty paid on such inputs, to fulfil the condition of S.No. 182 of Notification. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has upheld the Revenue’s stand of reversal of MODVAT Credit of Rs. 1,71,021/- - Decided against the assessee - E/2115/2006 - A/728/2011-WZB/AHD, - Dated:- 16-3-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri Mukesh Dhruv, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of brass sheets, circles which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs and the goods under process lying in stock as on 1-3-03. 4. It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority dropped the said show cause notice on the ground that the appellant s final product was correctly assessable to the duty in terms of S.No. 181 of Notification 6/03. Inasmuch as the said S.No. prescribed Nil rate of duty without any reversal of credit, the appellant was not required to reverse the credit attributable to the inputs in stock as on 1-3-03. The said order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was appealed against by the Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority allowed the Revenue s appeal by observing that the assessee has himself reversed the un-utilised credit of Rs. 2,58,746/- and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to a letter dated 3-3-03 written by the appellant opting for S.No. 182 of Notification No. 6/-3-C.E. As such, he submits that inasmuch as the condition of S.No. 182 required the assessee not to avail the benefit of credit in respect of inputs. Revenue was justified in asking them to reverse the credit of the input lying in stock which were ultimately used in the manufacture of the final product cleared in terms of said S.No. 182 of the notification. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, we find that undisputedly the appellant vide their letter dated 3-3-03 opted for payment of duty of Rs. 3500 PMT of the goods in terms of S.No. 182 of the said notification. Such option was changed subsequently vide their letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
