TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (3) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same order and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal and stay are that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of black pipes as well as galvanised steel tubes. The raw materials used by the Appellants in the manufacture of the pipes and tubes are Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils), Cold Rolled Coils (CR Coils) and Zinc ingots. The process of manufacture of steel tubes and pipes is to take out HR Coils, slit them into regular width and thereafter forming the same into tube shape and then press at the melting machine. Some of the tubes/pipes are thereafter galvanised. The appellants identified the said coils on receipt from the market by giving running coil number and accordingly accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22-7-1995 to 19-10-1995 2246.39 41,90,825/- 2. Coils on which credit was taken by assessee No. 2 (RPL) but which were latter diverted to assessee No. 1 (RSL) 1-7-1995 to 18-10-1995 1839.08 34,34,197/- 3. Zinc ingots on which credit was taken by assessee No. 2 (RPL) but which were later diverted to assessee No. 1 (RPL) 10-5-1995 to 11-10-1995 54.41 4,05,337/- Total 80,30,359 4. Accordingly, the applicants were asked to explain as to why Modvat credit in respect of HR/CR coils which were not received by them, but on which credits were taken, should not be disallowed and why equivalent amount should not be recovered from them. The Applicants were also ask....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pipes Ltd., Kanpur under Rule 173Q." 6. Arguing the stay petitions, Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate, submitted that he was not pressing insofar as items at Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, and that at this stage, they are prepared to deposit the amount. Insofar as Sl. No. 1 is concerned, he submits that it is only at times that the raw materials had to be off-loaded in the premises of the other unit as the two units were administered by the same Group. He submitted that there is no allegation about use of this item by one unit and the credit being taken by the other. He submits that the first point is that the goods were being off-loaded in the premises of the other unit, but the credit was being taken by the same unit in whose name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he inputs which they had not done. He submitted that the lower authorities have rightly demanded the duties and imposed the penalty. 10. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the diversion of goods from one unit to another for taking Modvat credit is not contested before us. In the case of M/s. RPL, the amount of duty on the inputs diverted to the other unit was about Rs. 38,39,534/- while in the case of M/s. RSL, such amount comes to Rs. 34,39,635/-. 11. Major amount of duty demand is in respect of the goods kept in the premises of the other unit though credit of such duty was taken by the unit in whose name the document was. From the submissions made before us, we note that the applicants had deposited Rs. 50.0....