2008 (7) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The demand for central excise duty of Rs. 24,884/- towards the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 has been confirmed against the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellants had availed benefit of Notificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equal amount of penalty and demanded interest. 2. Heard both the sides. Ld. Advocate submits that the Original Adjudicating Authority had satisfied himself and had explained that production register was maintained separately in respect of the exempted goods and the Board's circular did not prescribe specific records but had issued instructions that separate accounts should be maintained. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tification No. 29/04-C.E. or were used in the manufacture of exempted goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. It is also appearing that no separate Books of Accounts for dutiable as well as exempted goods were manufactured by the said respondent. Thus it is possible that the respondent might have taken the credit of duty paid on yarn (input) used in the manufacture of grey fabrics (final....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....seems to be assumptions and presumptions rather than examination of evidences and records available before him. He has not examined the decision of the adjudicating authority and has not explained why he is differing from him. It is also noticed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Shri Vijay B. Shah, Advocate reiterated the points mentioned in the memorandum of appeal whereas the....