ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides, and considered the issues. It is found:
a) that the Commissioner (Appeals) after finding that duty on the final product alleged to have been lost in a fire accident was paid vide Entry No. 2034 dated 1.3.1999 in the RG23A Part II under protest, the question of reversing Modvat credit under Rule 57C therefore would not be contemplated.
b) Revenue’s grounds taken in the present appeal are:
(i) remission of duty has been rejected and the duty has been paid under protest and the assessee has not paid the duty unconditionally.
(ii) Board’s Circular No 66/88-CX-6 dated 6.9.1988 is not relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not relevant as that circular dealt with credit of duty on raw materials destroyed in fire before being brought into use in the manufacture of final product.
(iii) CEGAT’s Order No. A2435/96-NB dated 4.10.1996 in case of M/s Inalsa Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not relevant as that order relates to remission o duty under Rule 49.
c) That the duty has been paid on the final products, on which remission has not been granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no case or cause to deny the benefit of the Modvat credit on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of those goods.
Revenue’s appeal brings out no grounds why and how Rule 57C or 57D would be applicable to deny and vary the credit availed.
d) In this view of the matter, this appeal is required to be dismissed.
2. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court)