1999 (3) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uts was in November, 1993. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are - That the respondents are manufacturer of aerated water and were availing the benefit of credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme. During the month of November, 1993 the respondents cleared for home consumption crown cork and Carbon dioxide gas by debiting duty equal to the amount taken as Modvat credit. The department alleged that the respondents should have paid duty as if the inputs had been manufactured in their factory. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents asking them to explain as to why the differential duty should not be demanded from them on the inputs cleared by them for home consumption. They contended that they paid duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed under Rule 57A shall be removed, after intimating the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over factory and obtaining the dated acknowledgment of the same, from the factory for home consumption or for export under bond, as if such, inputs have been manufactured in the said factory." The emphasis of the learned Departmental Representatives was that the Rule specifically provides that at the time of removal of the inputs on which Modvat credit has been taken the rate of duty shall be as if the inputs were manufactured in the factory from where they are being removed. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that in the instant case, the respondents removed the inputs; that the respondents were not a SSI un....