1990 (8) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dit after 1-4-1988 and directed them to pay duty of Rs. 18,342.55 (basic duty) and Rs. 253.96 (special) from their Personal Ledger Account. 2. Shri S.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel, appeared for the appellants when the appeal came up for hearing. He essentially reiterated the submissions contained in the appeal memorandum and clarified that when the appellants who were availing themselves of Modvat credit facility upto 31-3-1988 switched over to complete exemption from duty they worked out the credit of duty taken by them in respect of their inputs viz. Teak Veneers and Resin which were present as unutilised inputs or contained in the materials in process or in the finished outputs namely plywood which were to be cleared after that da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Heard Shri M.N. Biswas, learned SDR on behalf of the respondent Collector. He supported the impugned order and opposed the submissions made by Shri Roy Choudhury. 4. In have considered the matter. The impugned order is erroneous as it has treated the expunction of the available balance in the R.G. 23A, Part II account as payment of duty which, of course, cannot be effected from a lapsed account. But the expunction of the amounts available as unutilised balance is not in the nature of payment of duty at all. The appellants have also not been able to present the matter in proper perspective and thus contributed to the adverse decision. In terms of Rule 57C, no credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of a final product sh....