2016 (7) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate Rajesh Bindal J. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it was entitled to benefit of modvat credit on purchase of tray casting used in the process of manufacture of tiny powder, in terms of circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.1996, however, the same was wrongly denied to it. The submission is th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore the Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2000. The petitioner at that stage could not refer to the circular issued by the department entitling it to the benefit of modvat credit on purchase of tray casting. Immediately, rectification application was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 8.9.2000 by the Tribunal holding that there is no mistake apparent on record. He further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n consonance with the circular issued by the department. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of modvat credit in terms of circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.1996, however, he submitted that the circular having not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal, the benefit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustoms accepted the contention of the petitioner, but again despite existence of the circular of the department, the order was impugned by the department before the Tribunal, who accepted the appeal filed by the department. Once it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the modvat credit on the eligible capital goods, namely, tray casting in the present case, as was cl....