1999 (2) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid on inputs while discharging the duty on their final product; that during the period from 17-5-1988 to 14-4-1989, Department did not allow them to utilise the credit as the Department insisted on 1:1 correlation and maintenance of set off Register. When they asked for refund of the accumulated credit in cash, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund holding that there is no provision in the notification to allow carry forward of the credit and utilisation thereof for payment of duty on other goods; that the appellants could not produce the material which provides for refund in cash of credit available in balance. The Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The learned Advocate, further submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n denial of the input credit and reliance was placed on Orissa Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE; 1995 (77) E.L.T. 350 (Tribunal)s and Reliance Industries v. CCE; 1995 (78)s E.L.T. 595. He also relied upon the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. CCE; 1996 (81) E.L.T. 648 wherein it was held that no one to one correlation is required for availing the credit for payment of duty with reference to Notification No. 225/86. He finally submitted that they should be permitted to utilise the entire credit accumulated during the disputed period by crediting the same in Modvat credit account or the same be refunded in cash. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR submitted that there is no provision in the Notification No. 225/86 for ....