TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (5) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - In both the appeals, common issue is involved, hence they are clubbed together for final disposal. 2. In these appeals, the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-83 is denied to the appellants by the impugned order. In these appeals, the appellants had claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prays that the appeal be decided in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 4. Heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, JDR, appearing for the respondents/ Revenue. We find that this matter is covered by the earlier case of appellants, Triveni Forgings & Ispat Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur under final Order No. E/561/97-B1, dated 13-3-97 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 838 (Tribunal)]. The Tribunal following the ratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the appellants. The Revenue has taken a view that once the credit had been taken, the final products had to discharge the duty liability and there was no question of their being exempted. 6. We find that similar issue had came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Nagpur - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and the Supreme Court after referring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the reversal of the credit and not the payment of appropriate rate of duty. We consider that in the facts and circumstances of this case the exemption Notification No. 208/83-C.E. clearly provided that if the inputs were duty paid then the specified final products had not to bear any excise duty if no credit had been taken. It is clear that the intention was not to charge duty twice on the wir....