ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned orders, the authorities below have denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 to the appellants in respect of their final products – PTFE Paste, PTFE Spray, Pure PTFE/Teflon Moulded Components, etc., falling under sub-heading 3926.90. The exemption notification is available subject to fulfilment of the conditions enumerated therein. The condition No. 10 of the notification reads as follows :-
“Condition No. 10 – The manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty paid under Rule 57A or 57B on the products mentioned in the column 2 or other product manufactured in the same factory.”
2. The condition stipulates that the benefit is available if the manufacturer does not avail of the credit of duty on the products mentioned in column 2 or any other products manufactured in the same factory. The products mentioned in column 2 are products to which the notification grants the exemption. As such, it is clear if the manufacturer avails the benefit of the Modvat credit either in respect of the products on which he is claiming the exemption or in respect of any other product being manufactured in his factory on which the exemption is not being claimed, the benefit would not be available. Undisputedly, the appellants are manufacturing PTFE Braided Packing falling under sub-heading 6805.90 and are availing the benefit of the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the said heading. As such, it is clear that the said condition No. 10 of the notification in question is violated. We do not find any merits in the appellants’ contention that the said condition No. 10 applies in respect of the products in respect of which the exemption is being claimed and would not be violated, if the credit is availed in respect of the other products manufactured in the factory. The language used in the said condition is clear and unambiguous. Inasmuch as the said condition has been violated by the appellants, we are of the view that the benefit of the notification has been rightly denied to them. No other argument has been advanced before us. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.