2006 (5) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Modvat credit on the duty paid which was at the rate of 24%. The point is whether they are entitled to the Modvat credit to the extent of the duty actually paid or duty leviable. Even though the duty was paid at 24%, the duty leviable was only 16%. In other words, the supplier has paid more duty than necessary. The lower authority has held that in terms of Notification No. 21/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999, the credit of specified duty paid on the inputs shall be restricted to the extent which is equal to the additional duty leviable on like goods under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid on such inputs. In the present case, the duty leviable is at 16% only and not at the rate of 24% actually paid by the supplier. The differential dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; Duty paid under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. (b)      Additional duty paid under AB (TATA) Act. (c)      Additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 5. The learned JDR contended that if the supplier had paid duty in excess, it is for him to apply for refund at the duty paying end and it is correct on the part of the Departmental authorities to restrict the Modvat credit to the duty leviable. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. First of all, let us have a look at the relevant notification. The Notification No. 21/99-C.E. has been issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. In this notification, the input....