2008 (7) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  Both the appeals are disposed of by a single order. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic packing bags and laminated & un-laminated printed film, falling under Chapter 39 of CETA, 1985. 2. Investigation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant which culminated into an order passed by Jt. Commissioner confirming demand of Rs. 9,31,034/- and imposing personal penalty of identical amount. In addition, Modvat credit of Rs. 10,931/- was also denied, which the appellant have debited and are not contested. The said order of Jt. Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand pertains to clearances of two different units, when the assessee is one and the same, issuance of one show cause notice cannot be held so as to hold the proceedings as void. 5. Apart from the above, it stand contended by learned advocate that their final product, in any case, was exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. and No. 5/98-C.E. As such, they were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they have contended that they did not avail Modvat credit of duty paid on the input. The period involved in the present cases is March '98 to 2001. As such, at the most, it can be said that the differential duty for the period March '98 to June '98 is not liable to be confirmed on account of the fact that the goods were exempted, though the appellant has chosen to pay duty. Inasmuch as the facts ....