Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (1) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the appellants opted for the modvat scheme and are availing credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The appellants availed Rs. 15,605.70 and Rs. 21,848.15 p. under Entry No. 752/22.3.95 and 767/31-3-1997 in R.G.23A Part II for the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 776/2.3.95 and 776/2-3-1995 respectively which are not in the name of the consignee's at Bhavnagar but it is in favour of M/s. Medinex Laboratories (P) Ltd. Bhavnagar. The declaration enclosed to it is 21-4-1992 which does not refer to the Bill of Entry, and the space is kept blank.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is a delay of 76 days, and the question of waiting for the amendment of the impugned order as alleged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) is a baseless claim , and not supported by any documents. The appellant having sat idle for all these days and now made the claim which is vague. 3. Perused the orders of the lower authorities and the appeal memorandum. In para 2 clause (5) under the heading statement of facts the appellant have specifically stated that the order-in-original is contrary in itself, and so approached the department for clarification and they were told that suitable amendment will be done. Hence they did not file the appeal. But the Department started detention proceedings, for which the appellants w....