TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. Prasad, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. AT/525/M-11/2005, dated 7-11-2005. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the non-payment of 8% of the amount of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the appellant by utilizing the duty paid inputs for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted goods under the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3-2007. It is also his submission that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-II - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 190 (Tri.). 4. The ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority and submits that this is a fit case, where penalty is to be imposed. 5. Considered the submission made at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Bharat Electronics Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench has held as under :- "On a careful consideration and perusal of records, it is very clear that in terms of the impugned order, there was no machinery for recovery of the amount. The Tribunal, in the case of Pushpaman Forgings Ltd., held it so. The judgment of Pushpaman Forgings Ltd. was upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, Clause 82 of the ....