Jindal Polyester, Gulaothi Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants had taken modvat credit on furnace oil (inputs)during the period august 1997 to january 1998 at the (sic) of 152 ad valorem which amounted to rs.7,02,169.33. both the (sic) in their respective orders held that the credit taken in excess of 10% ad valorem during the above period was not admissible to the assessees inasmuch as the modvat credit on furnace oil was restricted to 10% under notification no.14/97-ce (nt) dated 03.05.97. hence the present appeal.3. ld. advocate shri nand kishore for the appellants fairly concedes that the decision of the lower authorities has been upheld by decisions of the tribunal and, therefor,e the present appellants do not have a sustainable case. he has cited the following decisions of the tribuna, which were rendered in the present appellants, own cases.4. on perusal of the above decisions, i find that the question whether notification 14/97-ce(nt) ibid restricting modvat credit on furnace oil to 10% ad valorem, issued under rule 57a is applicable to availment of modvat credit on furnace oil under rule 57a has been settled by the aforecited decisions of the tribunal and that the restriction imposed by the notification has been held to be applicable to modvat credits taken on furnace oil under rule 57b. in view of this decision, the present appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit on Furnace oil (inputs)during the period August 1997 to January 1998 at the (SIC) of 152 ad valorem which amounted to Rs.7,02,169.33. Both the (SIC) in their respective orders held that the credit taken in excess of 10% ad valorem during the above period was not admissible to the assessees inasmuch as the Modvat credit on Furnace Oil was restricted to 10% under Notification No.14/97-CE (NT) dated 03.05.97. Hence the present appeal.

3. Ld. Advocate Shri Nand Kishore for the appellants fairly concedes that the decision of the lower authorities has been upheld by decisions of the Tribunal and, therefor,e the present appellants do not have a sustainable case. He has cited the following decisions of the Tribuna, which were rendered in the present appellants, own cases.

4. On perusal of the above decisions, I find that the question whether Notification 14/97-CE(NT) ibid restricting Modvat credit on FurnAce Oil to 10% ad valorem, issued under Rule 57A is applicable to availment of Modvat credit on Furnace oil under Rule 57A has been settled by the aforecited decisions of the Tribunal and that the restriction imposed by the Notification has been held to be applicable to Modvat credits taken on furnace Oil under Rule 57B. In view of this decision, the present appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.