ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, inspite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in respondents’ own case, held that if a manufacturer choses not to avail the duty exemption, he is entitled to avail the benefit of taking the Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products.
4. Heard ld. SDR and perused the appeal papers.
5. The contention of the revenues is that in terms of Notification No. 217/86, dated 1-3-1986, the PVC film/sheet, if captively consumed in the manufacture of laminated fabric of Chapter 59, are exempt from payment of duty, hence, the respondents could not pay duty on their own. The contention of the revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal in respondent’s own case, vide final order No. A/1047/97-NG, dated 21-10-1997, is not accepted by the revenue and a reference application has been filed. The revenue has not produced any order or direction, which stays the operation of the earlier order passed in respondent’s own case. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.