TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/344/2006, dated 23-11-2006. 2. The respondent is absent despite notice nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass and appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondents. 3. Considered the submissions made by ld. SDR and perused th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd. I find that the appellants have deposited excess amount on the Modvated inputs not used in the Final Product but used as replacement in the Final Product during the Guarantee period. During the material period, the provision of Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were in existence which were independent of Section 11A provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. As the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable to them. This has been laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Suvidhe Limited v. UOI, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 and the principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Co. v. CCE, Jaipur, 1999 (114) E.L.T. 371. [Refer Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot, Trade Notice No. 106/2000, dated 23-10-2000. [2000 (122) E.L.T. 8]. In the above c....