TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The appellants are manufacturers of pre-recorded audio cassettes compact discs. Audio cassettes were exempted from excise duty vide Finance Act, 1998. The appellants were issued a Show-Cause-Notice dated 15-10-1998 proposing to recover Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,20,549/- under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, interest at the appropriate rate under the provision of Rule 57-I(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. A Show-Cause-Notice was issued on the ground that as per provisions of Modvat Rules, 57C Mod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its benefit is available to be manufacturer without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is therefore, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no correlation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excisable duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that it becomes available." 6. Whereas the authorities below have relied upon the decision of Albert David Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod involved was after the introduction of Rules 57AD and 57AH with effect from 1-3-2000, whereas in the present case, the period involved is from April to June 1997. Therefore, the authorities below have wrongly applied the Albert David's decision to this case, where the period was prior to the introduction of the Rules 57AD and 57AH considered by the Tribunal in the case of Albert David Ltd." 8. The ld. DR submits that the ratio held in Goenka Woolen Mills cannot be applicable to the present case. A similar provision like 57C were in existence earlier. In my considered opinion there appear no force in the present argument. The Divisional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goenka Woolen Mills is clearly held that the authorities ....