ORDER
Dr. S.N.Busi
1. The prayer in this Stay Petition is for dispensing with the predeposit of modvat credit of Rs.53,625/- disallowed and demanded in respect of inputs used for manufacture of Bright/Rods and cleared by the appellants M/s Jaiswal Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd.
2. As the dispute falls in a short campass and with the consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
3. Shri K.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had received back defective Bright Bars from their customers for remanufacture of the same and took credit thereon. The Department took the objection for utilization of modvat credit in respect of the defective Bright Bars received for remanufacture. Shri Chowdhury submits that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the case law cited by the appellants in their favour. Accordingly, they demanded the said amount which is the subject matter of the present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The learned Advocate submits that there is a catena of case law in support of the contention of the appellants. In this connection, he cites the following decisions of the Tribunal:
(i) G.E.Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Baroda, reported in 1999(105)ELT 344(Tri).
(ii) A.B.S. Industries Ltd. Vs.C.C.E.,Baroda reported in 1999(112)ELT 407(Tri)
(iii)Engineering Art Industry vs.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Reported in 1999(111)ELT 507(Tri)
(iv) A.B.S.Industries Ltd. Vs.C.C.E., Baroda reported in 1999(112)ELT 854((Tri).
Relying on the said case law, the learned Advocate argues that the benefit of modvat credit is legally persmissible in respect of the impugned inputs.
4. Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the reasoning contained in the impugned order.
5. I have heard both sides. I find that the matter is no more res integra inasmuch there is a catena of case law as cited by the learned Advocate in favour of the appellants. In fact,the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd.Vs.C.C.E., Allahabad – 2000 (38) RLT 986 (CEGAT-LB) and C.C.E.,Meerut vs. Tin Manufacturing Co. – 2000 (39)RLT 197 (CEGAT-LB)support the view point of the appellants. There is also a decision of the Tribunal in the appellants’ own case vide Order No.S-1539, A-2070 dated 18.12.2000 which is applicable on all fours to the present case. In view of this the impugned order is required to be set aside with consequential relief to the appellants. Ordered accordingly.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The stay petition also gets disposed of.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)