2001 (12) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacture of components of glass bulbs and tube lights. They have been availing Modvat credit. During visit of the Central Excise Officers to the factory premises of the appellants the officers observed that the appellants had availed excess Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,54,537/- (Rupees four lacs fifty-four thousand five hundred thirty-seven) than that of restricted credit of 10% on RFO. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case disallowing the excess credit and imposing penalty. When the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 4. Arguing the case for the appellant(s) Shri P.N. Kaul, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered. He submits that exemption notification viewed in the light of the above observation of the Tribunal it would be seen that RFO is not covered by the notification and therefore, restriction in taking Modvat credit does not apply to the credit taken in respect of RFO. 5. Learned Counsel submits that the central excise authorities have relied on the letter given by Shri Ajit Singh, an employee of Mathura Refinery. He submits that as against this the appellants produced a letter from the Deputy Manager of the Refinery indicating that RFO was different from the product named in the notification. Learned Counsel also submitted that when the assessee wanted to cross-examine Shri Ajit Singh, he was not offered for cross-examination and ther....