2000 (3) TMI 332

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 the inputs/capital goods. They took Modvat credit of duty paid on one diesel captive generating unit of 25 KVA - vide RG 23 C Part II Sl. No. 1, dated 12-7-1996. The department issued a show cause notice dated 27-12-1996 proposing denial of the said credit on the ground that the electric generating set of output exceeding 75 KVA were alone eligible. After due process of law, the lower authority disallowed the credit - vide order dated 31-7-1997. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit - vide Order-in-Appeal No. 220/98 (M-III), dated 30-4-1998 - holding that at the time of availing of Modvat credit, both 1(c) and 1(d) of Rule 57Q were in existence simultaneously and no differentiation could be made between generatin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of C.C.E., Aurangabad v. Enzo Laboratories P. Ltd. reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 434 (T), the payment of duty here was a statutory requirement so that the appeal could be heard on merits and therefore such payment cannot be construed as voluntary payment. They also referred the case law in the case of C.C.E. v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. reported in 1999 (32) RLT 614 (CEGAT) wherein the Tribunal negatived the contention of the department that the refund was time barred on the ground that the pre-deposit was not under protest. They finally pleaded that the refund arose consequent on allowing the appeal by the appellate authority and so should be granted to them. The matter was heard through Shri R. Kalyanaraman, Consultant when he reiterated the ....