2006 (4) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides and perused the record. The impugned order-in-appeal has confirmed confiscation of about 20,000 mts. of unprocessed fabrics and 6,600 mts. of processed fabrics. The unprocessed fabrics are the manufacture of other units and the appellant had received it as input for processing. The processed fabrics had been processed i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... admitted to such duty evasion. He therefore, contends that no relief is called for. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that SCN has been issued in relation to consignment already cleared as well as consignment under removal. He also points out that in relation to the consignment already removed, the appellant had entered in the invoice the debit number in the Modvat account, thou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and circumstances of the case clearly bring out that manufactured goods had been removed without paying Central Excise duty. The method of payment of duty is debit in the account, whether Modvat account or current account. Thus, payment of duty takes place only upon making the required debits in favour of the revenue in these accounts. Otherwise the amount in the account belong to the manufacture....