1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8363 OF 2003 M/s.Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd... Petitioner v/s. 1. Union of India & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Anupam Dighe i/by M/s.DSK Legal for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rao i/by Mr.T.C.Kaushik for respondents. CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14th September, 2004 P.C. Heard Mr.Anupam Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 18th July, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. In the light of the undisputed fact that the input viz. naphthalene was not notified and specified under the relevant notification issued under Rule 57A and the fact that the petitioner only opted for modvat credit under Rule 57A, the view of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) gave modvat credit to the petitioner under Rule 56A(8) 2 and this aspect was not at all noticed by the Tribunal. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers, 2002 (146) ELT 518 and the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Fair Banks Morse (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995(77) ELT 41. 4. We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The fact of the matter is, as noticed by us above, that the petitioner claimed modvat credit only under Rule 57A. As a matter of fact, not only that no claim was made by the petitioner under Rule 56A(8) but also there was no entries made by the petitioner in RG 23A register. The petitioner claimed modvat credit under Rule 57A but strangely the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the credit to the petitioner under Rule 56A(8). When the petitioner had claimed benefit under Rule 57A, in our considered view, the petitioner could not have claimed the benefit of modvat credit under Rule 56A(6) particularly when the conditions precedent under Rule 56A were also not satisfied. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application. 3 6. The view of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) J.) (J.P. (J.P. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) DEVADHAR, J.) DEVADHAR, J.)