1998 (2) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod would Modvat credit be available to the aforesaid extent to the appellants herein. 2. Relevant brief facts in order to resolve the above controversy are that unbranded chewing tobacco was made liable to duty with effect from 1-3-1994. Branded chewing tobacco had been made liable to duty earlier. In the beginning, there was no set off duty paid on unbranded chewing tobacco (UBCT) was available if it was utilised in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco (BCT). On realisation of the same, the Central Government issued a Notification on 8-3-1994 allowing the manufacturer to avail the procedure of Rule 56A. Later on, the procedure of Rule 56A was scrapped by Notification No. 23/94, dated 20th May, 1994. Simultaneously, a Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... party has not paid duty on such tobacco the same is recoverable from them under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, it may be observed further that Notification No. 21/94-C.E. (N.T.) and No. 24/94-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 20-5-1994 have to be read together. In the event of the party discharging their duty liability as aforesaid, they would be entitled to claim the benefit of Modvat credit of the same in terms of Notification No. 24/94-C.E (N.T.) subject to their observing the conditions specified in this notification and provisions of Modvat rules framed for this purpose. In view of this legal position, I do not consider this as a fit case for imposition of penalty on the noticee party." In view of the said para, the....