ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Though the application for extension of stay has been listed today, I feel that the appeal itself can be disposed off in as much as the issue is decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
2. The appellant’s have exported a consignment of Di-methyl Sulphate which is a final product. The same was found to be defective by the buyer who had returned the said consignment. The same was cleared by them on payment of duty on re-importation. They had taken the credit of the said CVD and reprocessed the goods & cleared the same again on payment of duty.
3. The modvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the re-imported material cannot be considered as inputs in as much as the same was finished product itself. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been decided by the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Merut v. Tin Manufacturing Co. and CCE Meerut v. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. reported in [2000(39)RLT197(CEGAT-LB)] = (2002-TIOL-172-CESTAT-DEL-LB) and [2000(39)RLT 200(CEGAT-LB)] = (2002-TIOL-173-CESTAT-DEL-LB) respectively. It was held in the said decision that when defective final products is received back and reprocessed and cleared on payment of duty, such defective returned goods are to be treated as inputs. In as much as the issue is covered, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant.
4. Appeal itself having being allowed, the application for extension of the stay becomes infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed off.