2004 (8) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise, Kolkata-II, on 31st July, 2003. 2. Heard Shri S.C. Rudra, ld. Advocate along with P.K. Ghosh, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri J.R. Madhiam, ld. JDR for the respondents. 3. Shri Rudra, ld. Advocate submits that in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57F of the said Rules, a manufacturer shall be eligible to take credit of an amount equal to the amount deb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal may kindly be allowed and the orders of the authorities below may kindly be set aside. 4. In reply, Shri Madhiam, submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, by its Circular No. 275/109/96-CX, dated 26th November, 1996, has clarified the position and it has been made clear as under : "A manufacturer is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e factory of the appellants either in RG 23 Part II or in PLA maintained by the manufacturer in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57G. Hence there was nothing wrong in re-crediting the amount of duty paid at the time of removal of the inputs or semi-processed goods from the factory. The appellants acted in accordance with the provisions of law. The clarification issued by the Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X