2000 (11) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants are manufacturing CI ingot moulds and clearing the same on payment of duty. These moulds are used by the customers in the manufacture of steel ingots and after some time these moulds became unserviceable and were cleared as scrap by their customers and the appellants were receiving these CI mould scrap and CI casting mould scrap and taking credit in respect of duty paid by their customers as scrap. The appellants are using this scrap in the manufacture of new moulds after re-melting the same. He submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in [2000 (119) E.L.T. 711 (Tribunal - LB) = 2000 (38) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty made by all appellants as per orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Stay granted in respect of remaining amount of excise duty and penalty - Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. - The main issue as to whether the clearances of excisable goods effected by the three applicants have to be clubbed together for the purpose of granting exemption under the Notification No. 16/97-CE, dated 1-4-1997 is an arguable issue. All the applicants have made pre-deposit of the amount of excise duty and penalty as per the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). No further pre-deposit is required to be made by any of the applicants. Therefore, pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty of excise and penalty is waived. [para 4] REPRESENTED B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other two applicants; that one Desh Raj, his four sons and their wives were partners in three firms operating from one premises and common office; that the manufacturing activities were jointly undertaken by the three applicants and accordingly their clearances have to be clubbed together; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under impugned Order No. 54-56/CE/CHD/2000 dated 28-1-2000, has rejected their appeals. He, further, mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority, under Adjudication Order No. 67/98 dated 24-9-98, confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on the three Applicants; that Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Adjudication Order ....