1997 (7) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondent. [Order]. - The Revenue had filed these two appeals against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 374-75/CE/CHD/94, dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Tyres of Moped & Bicycles falling under Chapter 40 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise disallow the Modvat credit and order the recovery of the same under Rule 51 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also imposed personal penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondent filed appeal and vide impugned order the appeal was allowed. 3. Shri V. Sethi, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inal product. He, therefore prays that the appeals be allowed. 4. Ms. Ginny Bedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order specifically held that there is no denying of the fact that duty was paid, therefore when the duty was paid on an input the Respondents are eligible for taking Modvat credit in respect of the duty. She f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Order-in-Original gave a specific finding that the Respondents had not declared the input in question in their Modvat declaration dated 1-7-1992 filed with the competent authority. He also gave a specific finding that a duty in question was deposited by the manufacturers from their own account and no duty has been deposited by the present respondent. Therefore, present Respondent's claim that they....