1994 (9) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of obtaining stay and the stay petition filed in another appeal may be treated as not pressed. 2. For hearing the appellants' appeal on merits they are required to deposit Rs. 3,87,54,480.27 towards duty vide order in appeal No. PCJ-370-371/B. III/94, dt. 20-6-1994. Shri Gupta, the Legal Manager submits that the entire issue hinges upon a small point as to whether, in computing the assessable cost of the goods, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) the duty paid on the inputs and taken as credit in pursuance to the Modvat scheme, should also be included for the purpose of arriving at the cost of manufacture. He submits that the very concept of the Modvat scheme is to provide the ultimate benefit to the consumer. He submits that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... indicate reduction for the duty availed on Modvat scheme for the inputs, has to be excluded, while working out the cost under Rule 6(b)(ii). In his submission therefore it is clearly a case where unconditional stay and waiver should be granted. 3. Shri Misra, the ld. SDR for the respondents has referred to the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) and also of Section 4 of the C.E. Act and has submitted that for purpose of arriving at the assessable value, the amount that the person has paid for the inputs has to be included. In his submission the credit that is being made available under the Modvat scheme, only means that the manufacturer can utilise the credit availed of for the purpose of duty on the final products but so far as working out of ....