2003 (1) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural discs for agricultural harrows and clearing the same under exemption notification without payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of duty on flat rolled product of alloy steel, which is an intermediate product on the ground that as the final product is exempt from duty, the appellants are liable to pay duty at this stage. The benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-95 was also denied in respect of scrap on the ground that the appellants were clearing the scrap arising out of excisable as well as non-excisable products. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al product, hence is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. The contention of the appellants is that in case the demand is confirmed, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of their excisable product. Appellants also submitted that they are entitled for abatement of duty for arriving at assessable value as provided under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act. Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3. 6. The contention of the revenue is that the appellants never declared the manufacturing process of their intermediate product to the revenue and these goods are trad....