ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Tribunal while passing a Final Order No. A/1186/97-NB, dated 19-12-1997 held that the goods are liable to duty. He submits that once the Tribunal has held that the duty was required to be paid on the finished product i.e. paper and paperboard, the appellants become entitled to Modvat credit which was being taken by them but was disallowed by the Department on the ground that the assessee was not paying duty on the finished products. He pointed out that this point was specifically taken in the Appeal Memo, indicating that they had taken in their records the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,84,046.40. He submits that in view of the fact that a mistake has crept in the Final Order, the Final Order may be recalled/modified to the above extent and the applicant may be permitted to avail Modvat credit. Shri P.K. Jain, ld SDR submits that it is a case of clandestine removal of the goods as there is no evidence placed on record to show that the inputs were actually used in the manufacture of the goods clandestinely removed. He submits that this is an essential requirement for allowing the benefit of Modvat credit.
2. Heard the submissions of both sides. We have perused the final order of the Tribunal as also the Appeal Memo, filed by the appellants. We find that there was a specific request that in case the goods are considered to be dutiable the appellants may be permitted to avail the Modvat credit taken by them on the inputs used in the manufacture of the goods alleged to have been clandestinely removed. We find that a mistake has crept in. Accordingly, we modify the final order by introducing para 36(a) after para 36 reading as :
“Appellants will be entitled to claim Modvat credit on the inputs used if otherwise admissible.”
The ROM application is disposed of in the above terms.