2007 (7) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 57B(1) the term 'inputs' referred only to such inputs as specified in the notification issued under Rule 57A and that as per the said notification Modvat credit on duty paid on furnace oil restricted to 10% ad valorem duty only, the department allowed credit to limited 10% ad valorem Assessee claimed differential duty (refund) of Rs. 7,77,982/- for the said period. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Aurangabad on 21-7-1999 informed the respondent that he is not entitled to any differential duty. Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Nagpur. The Commissioner by order dated 9-10-2003 rejected the said appeal. Respondent-assessee preferred appeal before CESTAT, Mumbai which allowed the appeal with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch a restriction as imposed by notification under Rule 57A does not apply to the inputs enlisted in Rule 57B. We intend to quote verbatim certain observations of the Supreme Court : "4. These goods which have been specified under Rule 57B have been specially provided for treatment different from those specified under Rule 57A. This clear from the non obstante clause with which the sub-rule (1) of Rule 57B opens." After referring to arguments of both sides in para 7 of the judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus in para 9 : "9. We are of the view that the Tribunal erred in holding that the ad valorem inputs credit under Rule 57B was subjected to the limit of 10% ad valorem as specified in notification dated 1st March, 1994. Rule 57B,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd, 2005 (180) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In fact this was a decision in review petition by the department whose appeal was earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court, 2003 (151) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) The review petition was allowed mainly because Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 was not brought to the notice of the Court when appeal of the department was earlier decided on 28-11-2002. Section 112 is quoted in the judgment and is titled as under : "112. Validation of the denial of credit of paid on high speed diesel oil" 8. It was in the light of notification under Section 112(1) held that no credit is admissible on any duty paid on high speed diesel oil at any time du....