JUDGMENT
S.S. Sekhon
1. The appellant M/s Ramachandra Rexins Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of PVC coated fabric falling under chapter heading 5903.19 of CETA 1985. They are availing modvat credit as per Rule 57 A and 57 G of Central Excise Rules 1944. They were served with a Show cause notice 1763/93 dated 22.12.92 for the period from November 89 to April 91 for having availed excess credit in resect of inputs falling under chapter 39.04 of CETA 1985 over and above the ceiling fixed under Notification 177/86; the notice alleged that the eligible credit should be restricted to Rs. 3.50 upto 31.5.90 and Rs. 5.25 there after upto the period covered in the said show cause notice; consequently the appellant was directed to reverse the excess credit availed amounting to Rs. 3,36,490.38. The appellants were also served with three other show cause notice as follows:
i) OC. No. 2588/91 dt. 27.12.91 for the period from May 91 to November 91 for having availed excess amounting to Rs. 487725.87.
ii) OC. No. 865/92 dt. 11.6.92 for the period from December 91 to May 92 for having availed excess credit amounting to Rs 117647.05.
iii) OC No. 1567/92 dt 16.11.92 for the month of January 92 for having availed excess credit amounting to Rs. 22042.81.
2.a) The adjudicating authority admitted the time bar in respect of show cause notice 1763/92 dt. 22.12.92 and confirmed the demand in respect of other three show cause notices on the ground that the classification list filed by the appellant did not have conversion factor or formula which could be taken for purpose of payment of duty on square meter.
b) The Appellate Commissioner upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority without considering the plea of the appellant that conversion factor was given in the statement furnished at the time of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority though not specified in the classification list filed by the appellant.
c) Aggrieved by the order original passed by the appellate authority demanding reversal of credit to an amount Rs. 2,21,302.62 the appellant preferred this appeal to CEGAT.
3. When the matter was called, none appeared from the appellants side, written submissions as received in the Registry were placed, we have considered the same and heard learned SDR and find..
a) Since a formula has been submitted by the appellant, albeit late, at the hearing, the same should have been considered by the lower authorities and the duty if any determined after considering the same and giving a categorical finding on the same. Since the formula has not been considered by the lower authorities the matter needs to be remanded back for reconsideration.
4. In view of our finding, the order-in appeals is set aside and appeals allowed as remand.
(Pronounced in open court on 22/11/2001)