https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48732 Rule 57F(1)(ii) was construed by the majority as a machinery provision for recovery of duty on inputs cleared as such, without reopening the original classification or assessment made when the inputs first suffered duty. On that reading, the expression "appropriate duty of excise" meant the duty originally borne by the inputs, subject to the proviso that the amount recoverable could not be less than the Modvat credit taken; the higher rate prevailing on the date of removal from the factory was not applicable. The demand at the enhanced rate was therefore unsustainable. The dissent treated the inputs as excisable goods manufactured in the factory and would have applied the rate and value prevailing on removal, subject to the credit floor. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2023 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48732 Rule 57F(1)(ii) was construed by the majority as a machinery provision for recovery of duty on inputs cleared as such, without reopening the original classification or assessment made when the inputs first suffered duty. On that reading, the expression "appropriate duty of excise" meant the duty originally borne by the inputs, subject to the proviso that the amount recoverable could not be less than the Modvat credit taken; the higher rate prevailing on the date of removal from the factory was not applicable. The demand at the enhanced rate was therefore unsustainable. The dissent treated the inputs as excisable goods manufactured in the factory and would have applied the rate and value prevailing on removal, subject to the credit floor. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48732