TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (6) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was taken as deemed Modvat Credit and was still available in RG 23 Part I account when Modvat facility for deemed Modvat was withdrawn. The same had been utilised by the respondents for payment of duty in respect of steel ingots, runners and risers manufactured by them and cleared after the said date of withdrawal of deemed Modvat Credit facility. The Tribunal followed the ratio of its earlier order and held that the respondents were eligible to utilise this Modvat Credit and the reasons adopted by the Tribunal in that order are reproduced below for convenience of reference. What Rule 57F(3) provides is that the credit of duty allowed in respect of any input can be utilised towards payment of duty on any of the final products in or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to in the very beginning of para (2) or the deemed credit order. In the said deemed credit order dated 7-4-1986, the words used are "the inputs" and not "any inputs". Therefore the word, "such inputs" appearing at the later part or the deemed credit order dated 7-4-1986 refers to "the inputs" which has a specifying or particularising effect as opposed to the indefinite article, "a" or "an". Therefore, the word "such inputs" used in the deemed credit order dated 7-4-1986 does not imply to be interpreted as meaning "all" irrespective of the context in which the same has been used. Though, the word "such" may mean `identical or like or similar or same depending upon the context in which it is used, undoubtedly, in the present context,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actured out of the inputs for which deemed Modvat Credit facility had been withdrawn. He in this context cited the decision reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 355. 4. Shri Venkataraman, the learned Counsel for the respondents pleaded that as the Tribunal had followed its earlier decision while giving relief to the respondents and since the earlier order had not been challenged by the authorities, the law can be said to have been settled by the earlier ruling. He cited the following case laws in support of his plea :- (1)1994 (71) E.L.T. T, 47 & 48. (2) 1989 (41) E.L.T. 181 - Sawottam Ispat v. CCE. (3)1993 (68) E.L.T. 256 (Tri.) = 1993 (22) E.T.R. 334 in the case of Rama Cables & Wires Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi. (4)1993 (65) E.L.T. 95 ....