2000 (10) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....P. Rao, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of spools for motor vehicles etc., and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on the inputs used in or in relation to such manufacture in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. On the basis of information gathered by Central Excise (Preventive) officers, who....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e aforesaid differential duty amount of Rs. 1,39,131.00 and impose penalty on the appellants under Rule 173Q(bb) of the Central Excise Rules (CER) for alleged violation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the CER. The party contested the show cause notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ho added to the advocate's list of case law the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)], submitted that such decisions were no longer binding in view of Section 110(2) of the Finance Act, 2000. He, therefore, prayed for rejecting the appeal. 4. We find that the demand of differential duty was raised by the Department on the ba....