TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri S.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-9-2003 wherein it was held that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the inputs lying in stock as on 1-8-1997. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and Billets falling under Chapter 72. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On an appeal the appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original to the extent of duty demand but reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides, considered the submissions and perused the records. I find that show cause notice has been issued on a ground which is not correct in law. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is found in para 3 which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The said reading of the notification would be totally contrary of the scheme of Modvat. Notification No. 33/97-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-8-99 inserted clauses (c) & (d) in the said rule. The said notification did not say anything other than insertion of these clauses in Rule 57F(17). Rule 57F(17) during the relevant period stood as follows :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (12) of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder erstwhile Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Balance credit in respect of inputs lying unutilised on 1-8-1997 having stood lapsed in terms of Rule 57F(17)(c) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, no further duty to be demanded in respect of inputs lying in stock - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944." Again the Tribunal in the case of CCE, JSR. v. Ravi Hi-Tech - 2004 (175) E.L.T.....