2004 (11) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsultant, for the Appellant. Shri Bidhan Chandran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-VI. In the impugned order the Commissioner dis-allowed Modvat credit for Rs. 1,54,737/- under Rule 57-I read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Demanded interest under Rule 57-I, imposed an equal amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tinely removed finished goods, the duty on such alleged removals was worked out to be Rs. 24,97,950/-. The Commissioner however dropped this demand as he held that there was no clandestine removal. The show cause notice also alleged that finished products valued at Rs. 1,87,250/- were not accounted and therefore were liable to confiscation. The Commissioner however, unconditionally released the go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....short. I observe that in para 53 of the impugned order, the Commissioner stated "the assessee have certainly failed to account for the inputs as required under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". He nevertheless says that the appellants admitted that in respect of some of the inputs, which were issued from store room to production shop for use in the manufacture of the finished goods, no ....