2005 (4) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i U.H. Yadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter Heading No. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and during the relevant period, were availing the facility under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per their initial production capacity, the appellants were to pay Central Excise duty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty liability. Accordingly, the demand of duty was confirmed. The proposal to impose the penalty was kept in abeyance. 3. Challenging the above orders. Shri S.P. Mathew ld. Advocate submits that on sanction of abatement claim they were entitled to have a credit in their PLA. The appellant's only mistake is that instead of awaiting for the abatement sanction, they took the credit suo mot....