2003 (6) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the respondents is that credit of Rs. 19,790/- was lying in their Modvat account on the day they opted for the Compounded Levy Scheme. The remaining amount of credit was already utilised towards payment of duty, therefore, that amount cannot be recovered. However, the respondents admitted that they are only liable to reverse the credit of Rs. 19,790/- which was lying in their Modvat credit on....