ORDER

1.The facts in this case are similar to those dealt with by this Court in CCE v. Narayan Polyplast1 except that the period in question is August 1997 to September 1997. The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant had wrongly availed of the MODVAT credit and was liable to pay the sum amounting to Rs 6,10,580. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the excise duty paid and MODVAT credit availed of were identical. Therefore the consequences of payment of excise duty after availing of MODVAT credit was revenue neutral. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. If upon verification, the submission of the respondent is found to a be incorrect, liberty is granted to the appellant to mention these matters before this Court.

In CAs Nos. 2593-97 of 2001

2. In view of the fact that admittedly according to the Department there was no revenue implication, the appeals are dismissed leaving the question oflaw open.

In CA No. 4003 of 2002

3. The MODVAT credit which according to the appellant had been wrongly availed of by the assessee was Rs 3,43,160. It is stated by learned counsel that the excise duty paid by not availing of the exemption was the