ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. By this appeal the Department seeks to set aside the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the assessee was entitled to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on thinners. The value of paint applied to parts of motor vehicles, (scooters and autorikshaws) and their parts.
2. The Departmental representative contends that according to the Board’s circular of September, 1987, thinners used could not be eligible for Modvat credit. Subsequently, by a circular dated 21-8-1989, the Board modified its stand and permitted credit to be taken. Since the credit was taken during the period between issue of both circulars, the second circular which has prospective effect would not apply.
3. It does not appear necessary for me to go into the question of whether the Board’s circular was prospective or not. Credit would be available on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, so long as that the input and finished product are notified for this purpose, and the input is not excluded in the explanation to Rule 57A. There is no dispute that the thinner was used to dilute the paint, so that it could be applied effectively. In fact it is doubtful whether paint can’t be applied without using the thinner. While the Board’s circular may bind the officers it cannot restrict the provisions of the rules. Therefore the credit has been rightly taken by the assessee, and the contention that allowing credit for the past period would create difficulties for the Department hardly requires an answer. I decline to interfere.
4. Appeal dismissed.