Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

impugned order came up for decision, it appeared that at this stage itself, the main appeals could be decided. both sides agreeing, this was done.2. the appellants imported certain goods. the customs authorities assessed the goods under a wrong tariff sub-heading resulting in the assessees having to pay more amount of additional duty than ought to have been paid by them. they took the modvat credit of the actual amount paid by them. vide three show cause notices the differential credit between what was paid and what was correctly payable if the assessment had been done under the proper heading, was sought to be reversed. the assistant commissioner ordered reversal. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the order. in doing so he relied upon the wording of notification no. 5/94. it was his belief that the wording in the notification suggested that only that amount is to be given as credit which according to the statute is leviable and not what actually has been paid.3. i have heard shri j.r. cama for the appellant and shri v.k. suman for the revenue.4. notification no. 5/94 in paragraph (1) thereof allows credit to be taken of the specified duty paid on inputs. the term 'specified duty' as illustrated by referring to the various enactments. a plain reading of the same does not give rise to the belief of the commissioner that equivalent amount to be taken as credit that was payable by the assessee under the provisions of those statutes.kerala states electronic corpn. v. collector of central excise 1996 (84) e.l.t. 44 (tribunal), 6. i thus find that the impugned order does not sustain. these appeals are allowed with directions for consequential relief.