9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-appeal dated 10-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority who allowed the refund/rebate of the duty to the appellants. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 100% cotton yarn and cotton denim fabrics falling under Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BED) CENVAT credit account. 3. The controversy, therefore, in these appeals centres round the question, as to whether the payment of the AED could be made from the CENVAT credit of BED or not. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the CENVAT credit of BED could not be utilized for payment of the AED. But his view cannot be subscribed being contrary to the provisions of Rule 57AB(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D. It is only prior to 1-11-2000 that restriction was placed on such a utilization, vide Notifications No. 5/94 and 21/99, but now, as the language of the above said referred rule stands, it is quite evident that utilization of the CENVAT credit of the BED can be utilized by the assessee for payment of any duty of excise which includes AED also. 4. The case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Gonterman Peiper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of BED for discharge of the AED and the refund/rebate claims are only consequential reliefs claimed by the appellants. Therefore, the appeals before the Tribunal are competent and maintainable. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in all the appeals is set aside and the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority are restored. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
