Per P.G. Chacko : These are Revenue's appeals. Appeal Nos. E/1979-1980/2001 are against order No. 386-387/2001 dated 12.6.2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the remaining two appeals are against order No. 4-5/2001 dated 22.1.2001 of the same authority. In fact, the lower appellate authority had passed order dated 12.6.2001 by following its earlier order dated 22.1.2001. In all these appeals, M/s Jai Drinks P. Ltd., Jaipur are the common respondents. The lower appellate authority, by the impugned orders, allowed certain amounts of Modvat credit to the respondents for various period between 1.3.99 and 31.12.99 on inputs supplied by 100% Export-Oriented Undertakings (EOUs). The respondents had taken the Modvat credits in question in terms of Notification No. 21/99-CE (NT) dated 28.2.99. That Notification restricted the Modvat credit on inputs cleared by 100% EOUs to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), to the extent of duty equal to the additional duty leviable on like goods (if imported into India) under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, equivalent to the duties of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles Textile Articles ) Act 1978, paid on such inputs. The department, in show-cause notice, took the view that, in respect of the inputs supplied by the 100% EOUs, the assessee was not entitled to take modvat credit in excess of Basic Excise Duty (BED) equal to Additional Customs Duty (CVD) leviable on like goods if imported into India. The assessee had taken credit, in respect of inputs received under the invoices issued by 100% EOU, either to the extent of BED equal to CVD leviable on like imported goods or to the extent of the Excise Duty actually paid by the EOU (supplier), whichever was less, in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Notification. The show-cause notice proposed to disallowed the Modvat credit taken in excess of BED equal to CVD. The proposal was contested by the assessee. The adjudicating authority upheld the department's view. In the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's plea in terms of the Notification and relying on decisions of this Tribunal, including the Larger Bench decision in Vikram Ispat Anr. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2000 (40) RLT 205 (CEGAT-L.B.). Hence the present appeals of the Revenue.

2. I have heard both sides. Ld. JDR Sh. V.K. Verma reiterates the grounds of the appeals. The only ground raised in these appeals is that the department has not accepted the Larger Bench decision in Vikram Ispat (supra) and has moved the Bombay High Court against that decision. There is nothing on record to show that there is any stay of operation of the above Larger Bench decision. Ld. Advocate Shri. K.K. Anand for the respondents has brought on record a calculation statement accompanied by copies of the invoices issued by the input-suppliers (EOU) so as to show the precise extent to which Modvat credit was taken by the respondents on the inputs covered by the invoices. Referring to the statement and the invoices, he has shown that all the credits taken by the respondents were strictly in terms of the Notification and the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Vikram Ispat.

3. I find that Notification No. 21/99-CE (NT) is pari materia to the proviso contained in Notification No. 5/94-CE(NT) dated 1.3.94 and that, with reference to the latter Notification, the Larger Bench, in Vikram Ispat (supra), held that, where an assessee procured inputs from 100% EOU and used the same in the manufacture of final product, they should, for purposes of availment of Modvat credit on such inputs, calculate the CVD leviable on like imported goods and take Modvat credit on the inputs to the extent of the Excise Duty actually paid by the EOU or to the extent of the CVD so calculated, whichever was less. The decision of the Larger Bench is equally applicable to