KAKDA ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order in appeal the issue relates to the duty demand in respect of the inputs lying in stock of the appellants as unutilised.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CTD bars/round bars. They availed modvat credit facility under Rule 57A but this facility was withdrawn vide Notification No. 18/97 w.e.f. 1 -8 -97 on the goods falling under Chapter heading 7214.90 of the CETA on which duty had been paid under Section 3 of the Act. The appellants being manufacturer of the goods falling under Chapter heading 7214.90 switched over to compounded levy scheme for payment of duty under Section 3A. Therefore, the balance credit in respect of the inputs on the notified date 1 -8 -97 having been unutilised, stood lapsed in terms of Rule 57F(17)(c). That being so, no further duty could be demanded in respect of the inputs lying in stock from the appellants. The case of the appellants stands squarely covered by the ratio of law in the case of Savitri Concast Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (138) E.L.T. 296] wherein under similar circumstances detailed above, the duty was demanded from the assessee who switched over to compounded levy option under Section 3A of the Act. It was observed that since the balance credit in respect of the inputs lying in the accounts of the assessee stood lapsed in terms of Rule 57F(17)(c) no further duty could be demanded from him.

(3.) In the light of discussion made above, the impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, as per law.