TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioner had paid duty they were entitled to take credit for the same. After having so said, the tribunal proceeded to hold that as coated fabric is classifiable under Heading 59.04 and it cannot be manufactured without first converting the granules into plastic sheet or film which then is to be used in the manufacture of the final product i.e. Coated fabrics and the Petitioners could not have acceded the limits specified in Notification No. 117/86-C.E. to Rs. 5,50 per sq. mtr. The Petitioners are aggrieved by this latter part of the order. 2. The Petitioners purchased PVC resin falling under the Heading 39.04 in the market and availed of MODVAT credit for the same. From PVC resin the Petitioners manufacture PVC film/sheets falling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Heading No. 569.03 are manufactured by three different processes viz. Coating, impregration and lamination. In coating and impregration process, rosins are directly used in manufacture of artificial leather cloth. In Lamination process resin is first used in manufacture of PVC film/sheet which is used as input in manufacture of artificial leather cloth. It is not a continuous process. It was further set out that the resin is an input for PVC sheet/film which is an input for artificial leather cloth. The assessee manufactures PVC sheet/form for sale and also uses the same for captive consumption for manufacture of artificial leather cloth. 5. The Commissioner of Central excise passed an order holding that the Petitioners had not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not applicable to a case where the duty paid on goods falling under Heading 39.20 is taken and utilized for payment of duty under Heading 59.03. It may be pointed out that that the Petitioners by way of an application for rectification has sought to correct the mistake in direction issued by the CEGAT. However, the same was rejected. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned counsel submits that the tribunal was right in holding that the Petitioners could not have availed of the credit as taken by them and the tribunal was within its jurisdiction considering show cause notice to have made the order as made. It is further submitted that the tribunal in the interest of justice could have moulded the relief and passed the order as passed. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and as such could not have been utilized. No show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had wrongly claimed the credit than what the Petitioner was entitled to. The Tribunal further in its order proceeded on the footing that there was only one method of making the coated fabric and that was whereby PVC granules have necessary to be converted into plastic film which then alone can then be used to coat the fabric. This finding is directly contrary to the stand taken by the Petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice where it has been set out that the goods under the heading 59.03 are manufactured by three different processes viz. Coating, impregration and lamination. The Petitioners used laminatio....