Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(96)ELT496(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. In this case, the department has denied Modvat credit on the ground that the input was originally classified under Chapter 27 which is not one of the notified inputs for Modvat purposes under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Subsequently, the input came to be classified under Chapter 38 and on the basis of a certificate by the Central Excise Officer with regard to the payment of duty by the manufacturer of inputs, the appellants took Modvat credit of duty paid on the input under Chapter 38. This has been sought to be reversed.
2. We have heard Shri George Cornelio, General Manager of the firm for the appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the respondents.
3. We find that the matter is fully covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of TELCO v. Commissioner - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 157, where under identical circumstances, the Larger Bench has held that the varying duty credit consequent upon the reclassification of the input from Chapter 27 to Chapter 38 has to be extended to the user manufacturer concerned. Following the ratio of the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.