2007 (3) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. Shri Samir Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. -  Heard both sides on stay petition. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under :- (a) The appellant company manufacture POY and, clear part of the goods on sale as partially oriented yarn (POY) and use the rest for captive consumption for the manufacture of PTY. (b)&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y paying the duty but, subsequently reversed the same in paying duty on the same inputs. As regards the demand of Rs. 1,28,04,499/- arising out of the show cause notice dated 3-1-2006, he submitted that the appellant is eligible for the credit in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Silvasa Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi, reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 213 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., correct in holding that the assessee had taken NCCD credit fraudulently. Regarding the second issue, the learned advocate relies on the decision in the case of Silvasa Industries (supra) for contending that the credit was admissible. The same is, prima facie, misconceived because, in the present case no NCCD was paid on the inputs and, even if it were paid the credit of NCCD could have been util....