2008 (2) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri T.C. Rajadas, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I take up the appeal. 2. The appellant-Company has two manufacturing units at Pondicherry and Unit-II has filed this appeal against an order of the Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ets (input) which was not dutiable by virtue of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. ibid. Learned Counsel has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)] and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd. [2006 (203) E.L.T. 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel. Their Lordships held that, where the amount of Modvat credit wrongly availed by an assessee was exactly equivalent to the amount of Excise duty paid by the input-manufacturer without availing exemption, the consequence was revenue-neutral and hence there could be no demand for reversal of the credit. The case law cited by learned SDR cannot be followed in the above circumstance. 4. In t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X