1998 (9) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri H.K. Saran, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - M/s. Leading Engg. Works (Appellants) have two units one at Bahadurgarh and the other at Delhi. They manufacture parts (semi-finished) in the Bahadurgarh unit, transfer them to the Delhi unit and use them after completion in the manufacture of lathe, which are cleared on payment of duty. The semi-finished ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore, contended that demand of duty was not justified. In the alternative, they also submitted that the said movement of goods from one unit of the manufacturer to another unit without payment of duty is permissible under Notification 217/86 also. They further submitted that in the event of not extending this benefit, they were entitled to Modvat credit of duty paid on the semi-finished parts. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise law justifying demand of duty. They had been granted permission under Rule 56B and during the instant period also their application for grant of the permission was pending. He also submitted that they were entitled to Notification No. 217/86 and that being the most convenient provision, the lower authorities erred in not allowing them this benefit. He also submitted that procedure of Modva....