2005 (7) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard Shri S.P. Majumdar, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A. Raha, ld. SDR for the respondents. 2. Shri Majumdar submits that in the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts that Notification No. 5/94-CE (NT), dated 1-3-94 and Notification 58/97-CE, dated 30-8-97 are mutually exclusive, covering two different are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Raha supports the impugned order. 4. I have perused the relevant Notifications, records and the impugned order. Sub-rule (6) was inserted under Rule 57A of the then Central Excise Rules, 1944 by virtue of the Notification No. 44/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-8-97 to allow deemed credit on certain inputs which were brought under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es accompanying the said inputs. By Notification No. 14/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98, the restriction of 95% was provided on deemed credit but this amending Notification had no application to Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-8-97. In fact, the Notification No. 14/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 is an amending Notification whereby the Notification Nos. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-94 and 14....