2010 (12) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period, they had availed modvat credit on PVC resin and other inputs, which, upon scrutiny of records, was found to be in excess of what was due to them, by the Range Superintendent.  The Superintendent issued letters to the appellant asking them to reverse the excess credit taken on the inputs.  The appellants readily complied with the direction of the Range officer.  However, after a lapse of nearly 5 years, the appellant took re-credit of the same amounts, which was objected to by the Department by issuing show-cause notices on 22/5/2003.  These show-cause notices proposed to recover the modvat credit amounts irregularly taken in RG23 A Part-II, alleging that the notices had, by taking re-credit as above, contravening....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....andestine removed during the period 1998-99 and also on raw materials which were alleged to have been cleared likewise during the said period.  Pending adjudication of the show-cause notices, both the appellants approached the Settlement Commission and eventually the Settlement Commission passed the Final Orders in April, 2010, copies are also seen attached to the miscellaneous applications.  It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the Settlement Commission had also taken cognizance of the modvat credit in question and therefore it was not open to the Department to issue the subject show-cause notices dt.22/5/2003to the appellants seeking to recover the amounts of credits taken after reversal in RG23A Part-II accounts.  ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....  In this connection, the ld. Counsel has referred to case law.  Some of the decisions cited by him are listed below:- a. Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CCE(A),Visakhapatnam [2009(239) ELT 99 (Tri. Bang.)] b. CCE,SalemVs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2009(239) ELT 398 (Mad.)] c. Borsara Machines Vs. CCE,Surat [2009(236) ELT 331 (Tri. Ahmd.)] d. Shree Valsad S.K. Udyog Mandali Ltd. Vs. CCE&C,Daman [2008(228) ELT 561 (Tri. Ahmd.)] e. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore [2008(224) ELT 333(Tri. Bang.)] f. CC&CE,RajkotVs. Intricast Pvt. Ltd. [2007(210) ELT 406 (Tri. Mum.)] g. Ferrous Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV [2003(160) ELT 856 (Tri.Del.)] h. Sagar Twisters Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2005(188) ELT 497 (Tri. Mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jt.CDR, the above reversal of the credits had received the stamp of approval of the appropriate officer of Central Excise in due course.  In such situation, it was not open to the appellants to take re-credit of the same amounts without the Departments sanction. 6. We are in full agreement with the above view expressed by the ld. Jt.CDR.  We also find that the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in BDH Industries Ltd. (supra) squarely supports the said view.  Most of the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel, which were rendered after the Larger Bench decision, cannot hold good.  Other decisions cited by the ld. Counsel are by and large distinguishable on facts.  The two decisions on which much stress was laid by the ld....