TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the appellants and the learned SDR for the respondent. 3. The appellants challenge the order dated 19-2-2009 passed by the Commissioner, Indore. By the impugned order, while disposing of the proceedings relating to three show cause notices issued to the appellants, the Commissioner has confirmed the duty liability of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 2,63,65,939/- pursuant to the show cause notice dated 22nd March, 2007, duty amount of Rs. 64,87,078/- pursuant to the show cause notice dated 22nd March, 2007 and duty amounting to Rs. 84,37,985/- pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29th June, 2007. The Commissioner has also required the appellants to pay the interest on the said amount in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. v. CCE., Nagpur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) as well as of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.), submitted that it has been clearly explained by the Board that if the credit is reversed without utilisation thereof, the benefit under the said notification cannot be denied. According to the learned Advocate for the appellants, the decisions relied upon clearly supports the advice given by the Board under its Circular and applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, the Commissioner could not have denied the benefit available under the said notification to the appellants. He further submitted that the matter relates to the periods from March,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e credit was reversed by March, 2007. Merely because, the credit was lying with the appellants till it was reversed, according to the learned Advocate for the appellants, it should not have considered to have been utilised by the appellants so as to deny the benefit of the said notification. 7. The contention in that regard has been sought to be disputed by the learned SDR on behalf of the respondents particularly, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. case. 8. In Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. case, the Allahabad High Court after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. as well as the decision of the Tribunal had held that the reversal of the credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portion of the decision in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reads thus - "8. There is no merit in this civil appeal. Under the notification, mode of payment has not been prescribed. Further, exemption is given to the final product, namely, grey fabric under the Central Excise Act, 1944, levy is on manufacture but payment is at the time of clearance. Under the Act, payment of duty on yarn had to be at the spindle stage. However, when we come to the Exemption Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., the requirement was that exemption on grey fabrics was admissible subject to the assessee paying duty on yarn before claiming exemption and subject to the assessee not claiming Cenvat credit before claiming exemption. The question of exemption from payment ....