2009 (12) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of reduction in penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Shri Manish Mohan, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that at the time of the visiting to the factory of the respondent, the officers found that scrap of 9875 kgs generated during the course of manufacture was not accounted for in any....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the respondents. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions : - (i)   Century Tiles Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad- 2008 (6) LCX 367 (ii)  Madras Peto-Chem Ltd. v. CCE, Madras - 1999 (3) LCX 220 (iii)  Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. v. CC (Gen.), Mumbai - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 389 (S.C.) = 2009-TIOL-9-SC-Cus. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (Appeals). The learned Advocate submitted that there is no any provision under Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 and since they have been clearing the excisable goods without payment of duty, even though no Modvat credit was taken. The condition No. 10 of exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E. is clear and according to condition No. 10, the respondents are not entitled for exemption i....