2001 (12) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rise out of the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellants have been directed to reverse the Modvat credit of Rs. 93,091.00 (Rupees ninety-three thousand ninety-one) and of Rs. 24,850.00 (Rupees twenty-four thousand eight hundred and fifty) on the findings of violation of the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they have not received back the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was clarified that Modvat credit is not required to be reversed for such losses. 3. I have also heard Shri A.K. Mondal, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue who supports the impugned Order by relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 315 (Tribunal). 4. I find that there is no dispute about t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es, it cannot be said that such waste and scrap has arisen in the hands of the job-worker, the same being invisible. Such invisible loss is covered by the provisions of Rule 57D and the appellants cannot be asked to reverse the Modvat credit taken on the inputs. 5. I also find that a recent decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.Ex., Madras v. Bush Boake Allen (I) Ltd. r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X