TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 27-8-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the restoration of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,65,33,489/- to the respondents after reversing the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner in that regard. 2. The respondents are engaged in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the disputed amount, but the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed his order through the impugned order. 3. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 4. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that by applying the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Tribunal in (i) CCE v. Aggarwal Rubber Products, 1997 (22) RLT 928; (ii) CCE v. Oswal Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter. If the respondents had availed the benefit of the said notification for free import of the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final product, they could not claim any Modvat credit in respect thereof. 5. The learned Counsel has no doubt contended that the VABAL, were not utilised by the respondents, although, they made reversal of the credit at the time of export and as such t....