Modvat credit disputes already covered by a separate show-cause notice must be decided in those proceedings, not in parallel appeals.

Where reversal or denial of Modvat credit on inputs used in making rigid polyurethane foam was already covered by a separate show-cause notice, that issue had to be adjudicated in those proceedings and not in the present appeal. The Tribunal treated the later notice as the proper forum for deciding the admissibility of credit and any consequential reversal, and therefore declined to pass any order on that question in the appeal before it. The principle stated is that a specific credit dispute already pending under a separate notice should not be decided in parallel proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question of reversal or denial of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of rigid polyurethane foam could be decided in the present appeal when a separate show-cause notice on that very issue had already been issued.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that a separate show-cause notice dated 8-8-1991 had been issued seeking reversal of the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of rigid PU foam. Since that notice specifically covered the admissibility of credit and the consequential reversal, the issue was one for adjudication in those proceedings. The present appeal, therefore, was not the proper proceeding for passing orders on that question.

Conclusion: The issue of Modvat credit reversal was left to be decided in the separate proceedings arising from the show-cause notice, and no order was passed on that question in the present appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific issue is already the subject of a separate show-cause notice, it should be adjudicated in those proceedings and not decided in parallel proceedings.

---