T.K. Jayaraman, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal filed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 189/2004 dated 30th November, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals -II), Hyderabad.
(2.)SHRI T. Ramesh, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Bhat, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
(3.)THE learned Advocate submitted that there was a dispute regarding status of the appellant's unit as to whether it was an "integrated steel plant" or not. Initially the appellants were discharging duty liability on the basis of compounded levy scheme. Ultimately, the issue was resolved in favour of the appellants holding that their unit to be "integrated steel plant". The consequence is that the unit would be entitled for the benefit of the modvat credit. After taking into account the duty liability and the payment effect by the appellants, the learned Advocate submitted that they would be entitled for taking modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 15,84,287. The lower authorities have denied the benefit for the reason that the modvat credit procedure was not followed. He said that in view of the dispute, during the disputed period the appellants could not have followed the modvat procedure. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Formica India Division v. CCE , the learned Advocate maintained that they would be entitled for the benefit.
The learned SDR reiterated the order -in -original and the order -in -appeal.