2001 (5) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal restricted to only one point decided by the Commissioner in favour of the appellants holding that they are entitled to take Modvat credit on the duty paid on inputs while manufacturing the final product articles of plastics which have been classified under Chapter Headin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 and the bench of 5 Members of the Tribunal resolved the issue and held that the assessee is entitled to abatement in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii). He also relies on the following judgments on this very point rendered in large number of cases :- (i)         CCE Bombay v. Barnee Ltd. and Anr. [2001 (128) E.L.T. 126 (T) = 2001 (43) R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that Revenue has not challenged the classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and denying the benefit of notification. The appellants have paid duty on the inputs and therefore, the Commissioner held that while clearing the final product, they are entitled to claim Modvat credit in terms of CEGAT judgment rendered in Kwality Printers v. CCE [1994 (73) E.L.T. 901]. The Revenue contends....