(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as under: - -
(2.) The appellants' contention is that such utilisation of duty by them should be considered as reversal of MODVAT Credit, thus fulfilling the conditions of the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). They are arguing that if the benefit of the Notification would have been extended to the during the relevant period, there was no requirement on their part to claim the Credit and to pay the Duty. As such, the utilisation of the Credit for payment of duty, which was otherwise not liable to be paid by them, amounts to reversal of the Credit.
(3.) ON the other hand, the Revenue's stand is that the Order -in -Appeal dated 20.7.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly directed that the MODVAT Credit availed by the appellants should be reversed so as to earn the benefit of Notification No. 101/66. The appellants had also admitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) for such reversal. As such, the appellants are bound to pay the MODVAT Credit in cash, which has already been utilised by them. Learned J.D.R. submits that as regards the duty paid on their final product, the appellants are at liberty to claim the refund of same. In any case, the duty so paid by them already stands recovered from their customers.