2004 (11) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise duty in respect of first 3500 MTs of paper cleared under relevant Notification. Since the appellants used modvatable inputs in the manufacture of paper which are also cleared on payment of duty, they reversed an amount equivalent to 8% at the time of clearance of goods cleared at nil rate of duty in view of the fact that they were not able to maintain separate account. This is as per Rule 57AD/57CC [Rule 6 of the present] Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Orissa Extrusions v. CCE, Bhubaneswar reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.), the appellants felt that they need not reverse 8% of the sale price. Hence after intimating their decision to the Department th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption, if input credit is availed. In that case, the product manufactured by the appellants namely, Sprinkler equipments is mentioned in Sl. No. 16. Since Sl. No. 16 was not mentioned in the second proviso, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted that as far as the product in Sl. No. 16 is concerned, the condition that the appellants should not avail input credit has not been stipulated. Even if the appellant avails input credit, the product in Sl. No. 16 is entitled for exemption. When the Revenue contended that the appellants will be debarred from availing input credit in view of Rule 57C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows : "6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to Rule 57C which states that no ....