COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ELECTROLUX KELVINATOR LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order -in -appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the respondents.

(2.) The learned JDR has contended that, at the relevant time, the Notification No. 27/2000 -C.E. (N.T.) was in force under which the availment of Mod -vat credit by an assessee/purchaser of the inputs, was restricted to a specified rate, therefore, the respondents could not take full Modvat credit on the inputs received by them after the issuance of this notification and they could only take credit to the extent specified therein.

(3.) I have heard both sides and gone through the record. In my view, the contention raised by the learned JDR cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that this Notification No. 27/2000 -C.E. (N.T.), referred to above, was never relied upon in the show cause notice by the Revenue for denying the Modvat credit to the respondents. The Revenue only relied upon the Notification No. 6/2001 -C.E. (N.T.), dated 1 -3 -2001 on the basis of which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit to the respondents, after taking into account that the respondents received the inputs under the cover of duty paid invoices and availed the Modvat credit accordingly and the defective goods were returned by them to the manufacturer after reversing the credit and paying the duty in respect thereof for rectification of the defects. It also remains undisputed that the manufacturer after removing the defects, returned the goods to the respondents without availing any credit. He only gave reference to the invoices of the respondents under which the goods for rectification purposes, were received by him.