2001 (7) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printing ink falling under sub-heading No. 3215.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants manufactured and consumed 20 Kgs. of printing ink for manufacture of 20 Kgs. catalytic agent falling under sub-heading No. 3815.00, during the month of March, 1996 without disclosing the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order passed by the Asstt. Commr. of Central Excise confirming demand of duty against them and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal against the same failed. 4. I have heard Shri P.C. Das, learned Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR, for the Revenue. 5. The appellants had initially entered 20 kgs. of printing ink in their RG-1 reco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of confirmation of demand of duty again on the said item is not justified. The Modvat credit was earned rightly and correctly by the appellants and the same can be utilised towards payment of duty on any final product. The fact of non-declaration of the final product would be that duty paid out of the credit would be credited again in the appellant's account and could be used for clearance on any....