1998 (9) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... waiver of pre-deposit of the amount under the impugned order has also been filed by the appellant. 3. In this case the appellant is a manufacturer of Metal Container classified under Heading 7310.00. They were availing facility of credit under Rule 57A. The item Metal Container was exempted vide Notification No. 41/94 amended by Notification No. 55/95 dated 16-3-1995 that if no process is ordinarily carried out with the aid of power in relation to the manufacturer of Metal Container. The appellant cleared their final product without payment of duty since 16-3-1995. It was felt that in view of the provisions of Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules the appellant was not eligible for credit for the inputs for which credit was taken were lyi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he duty on finished product. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has cited the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases of, amongst others, (i) C.C.E. v. Wipro Information Technology - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 172 (Tribunal) (ii) C.C.E. v. Sunder Engineering Industries - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 452 (Tribunal) (iii) C.C.E. v. Kirloskar Electric Co. - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 468 (Tribunal). They have also cited the order of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. - 1994 (54) ECR 125 in their favour. It was also submitted by them that the department has not correctly shown the balance of inputs and finished products on which duty has been demanded. They submitted a written resume during the course of personal hearing which has been pl....