2013 (2) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had availed MODVAT Credit on various inputs during the period from January to October, 1997. The Department raised objection on the admissibility of MODVAT Credit on such inputs. Consequently, a show cause-cum-demand notice was issued to them on 09.12.1997, demanding MODVAT Credit of Rs.9,48,965.81 and proposing penalty under erstwhile Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said show cause-cum-demand notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner by disallowing MODVAT Credit of Rs.5,48,896.21 under Rule 57I(1) and imposed penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh under Rule 173Q(bb) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.2. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the learn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als) has confirmed the demand in respect of the input, Solvent 1425 . He has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly referred to the judgement of CESTAT in the case of TELCO vs. CCE, 2001(136) ELT 305(T) in coming to the conclusion that classification of input cannot be altered in the hands of the input-user. The learned AR has also referred to the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the said issue in the case of Sarvesh Refractories(P)Ltd. vs. CCE & C, 2007(218) ELT 488(SC), which has been followed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jamshedpur vs. Usha Martin Ltd., 2009(248) ELT 776(Tri.-Kol.). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that from the initial amount of demand of inadmis....