2002 (1) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al market. They availed benefit of Duty Entitlement Certificate Scheme (DEEC Scheme). They imported raw material under the value based and quantity based advance licences issued to them under the said scheme. The Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92 exempted the materials imported against that licence from the payment of whole of customs duty and additional duty, subject to the conditions specified therein. The appellants were initially not aware of the notification and on realisation their mistake, they decided to reverse the credit. However, they vide letter dated 30-1-95 intimated to the department that reversal of Modvat credit due to mistake, should be treated to had been done under protest. This they so stated as they were not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. The counsel has also referred, in support of his contention, the Apex Court judgment in India Cement Ltd. v. CCE - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.) and the Tribunal's judgment in Rosin & Turpentine Factory v. CCE - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 66. 4. On the other hand, learned SDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants when firstly reversed the credit, sent letter dated 30-1-95 to the excise department. The relevant para of that letter is extracted below :- "We however undertake to debit any deficiency of Modvat Credit notice....