ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Preventive), Chandigarh vide his order dt.24.7.97 dropping the proceedings initiated against the appellants for the recovery of the duty amounting to Rs.51,660/-. This amount of modvat credit was sought to be recovered from the appellants in the proceedings initiated against them by the Department on the ground that they had taken the modvat credit on the returned goods against their own invoice No.54 dt.13.6.96 issued in favour of their own unit in Chandigarh. These goods were despatched by the appellants to their own unit at Chandigarh and the same were returned for re-processing, as same were found to be sub-standard. The Addl. Commissioner in his order observed that the unit at Chandigarh was not working under Central Excise control and therefore, they had not availed the modvat credit on these goods; that the goods were returned under stock transfer note along with the original duty paying invoice and in view of these facts, the original authority did not find any ground to deny the modvat credit to the appellants.
2. The Department filed an appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt. 11.6.99 observed that under the facts of the case, only recourse available to the party waste resort to Rules 173-H/173-L. Consequently, he held that the credit on the reported goods was not admissible under Rule 57-A. Accordingly, he set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the Department.
3. The present appeal is against the afore-stated order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, JDR for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants has relied on the ration of the following decided cases, in which the modvat credit is held to be admissible on the returned goods:
(i) CCE vs. Meerut Tin Manufacturing Co. 2000(39) RLT 197 (CEGAT-L.B),
(ii) CCE Meerut vs. M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips – 2000 (39) RLT 200 (CEGAT-L.B), and
(iii) M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Allahabad 2000 (38) RLT 986 (CEGAT-L.B).
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made before me, it is observed that the facts of the present appeal are fully covered by the ratio of the above cited decisions. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential belief, if any.
(Announced in the Court)
