2018 (6) TMI 1408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quivalent to 6% of the value of the goods - Held that:- Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2017 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2010 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue involved in this case is regarding reversal of amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods cleared under Notification No. 82/84 to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited claiming exemption on following the procedures required under Chapter X Procedure. Undisputedly, that the purchasers of the final products followed the procedure under Chapter X and CT-3 certificates produced. It is the case of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M/s I.B.P. Company Ltd., Vs. CCE ST, Raipur [2016 (1) TMI 1313-CESTATNew Delhi] has taken a different view and following the decision in the case of Navbharat Explosive Co. Ltd., in an identical set of facts held that recovery of Modvat credit has to be undertaken under Rule 57(I) and the same ratio will apply in the case in hand the appellant is required to reverse the credit. The appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X