9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (T)]. - This appeal relates to claim for modvat credit. The issue has been referred to this Larger Bench on account of conflicting decisions rendered by Single Member Benches of this Tribunal in the cases of Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 918 (Tribunal) and Orissa Extrusions Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 42 (Tribunal). 2. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 453-CE/MRT/99, dated 13-5-1999 relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Orissa Extrusions Ltd. reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 42. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the assessees had paid duty on the rejected parts when they cleared the same to their original suppliers. Learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese items as inputs. Therefore, Rule 173H and Rule 173L do not apply to their case at all. 4. We have heard the learned DR also. 5. We find that the Modvat claim in the present case is in respect of duty paid on components received as 'inputs' by the appellants from other suppliers. Appellants are not the manufacturers of these components. These claims were valid as the inputs and final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
