ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants took Modvat’ credit of the additional duty of customs paid on imported paper used in the manufacture of electric wires and cables. Later, a show cause notice was issued to them alleging that in terms of proviso issued to Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, the credit should be restricted to Rs. 800.00 PMT. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand holding that the additional duty levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was nothing but CVD and limits specified to excise duty in the said proviso should apply. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal is before us.
2. We have heard Ms. Ginni Bedi for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue.
3. The Supreme Court in their decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works – 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) have categorically ruled that additional duty of ¦Customs, as referred to in Sections 2 and 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is not C.V.D. In holding it otherwise, both the Assistant Collector and the Collector have made a grave error.
4. The short point for consideration is whether the restrictions placed on the quantum of Modvat credit in the cited proviso extends to the additional duties of customs or not. The first paragraph of the notification defines “specified duty” as the duty of excise, the special duty of excise levied under the respective Finance Acts from 1988-1992 and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. This term “specified duty”, has been used in the second proviso relating to vegetable products as well as sheets, boards, floating structures etc. But when reference is made to limiting of the benefit in the case of paper or paper board, the term “specified duty” is not used, but each of the special duties as also the duty of excise is specifically and individually named. The significant omission is of the additional duty of customs. It has, therefore, to be held that this omission was deliberate and that there was no intention to limit the credit to Rs. 800 PMT where the credit originated from payment of additional duty of customs.
5. We set aside the lower orders, allow this appeal and direct resultant relief, if any.