TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. - The Appellant manufacture BOPP films and have opted to work under the modvat credit scheme. They cleared during the period May 1989 to September 1989 three consignments of BOPP films at nil rate of duty under Form AR3A. Two of these consignments were cleared to 100% export oriented unit and one of them was cleared to an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....S. Patki, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the show-cause notice is vitiated because it is not quantified the duty amount, for which he relied upon the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of JBA Printing Inks v. Union of India - 1980 E.L.T. 121. In that the High Court held that the show-cause notice should specify the amount short levied clearly to the assessee. The departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covery of modvat credit. 4. Shri K.L. Ramteke, the Ld. DR referred to the finding in the impugned order in which is held that the Assistant Commissioner's adjudication order would cover whole of the amount mentioned in the Assistant Commissioner's order for recovery under Rule 571. Therefore there is no infirmity in the show-cause notice. He also relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that the Assistant Commissioner's order also narrates that the demand is in respect of three AR3A between May, 1989 and September 1989, whereas it is clear from a perusal of the narration in the impugned order that in confirming the demand it includes one of the clearance in October and November, 1989. Therefore this part of the demand is unsustainable and it is held that the demand in excess o....