2009 (11) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicants insists that he would like to make further submissions on merits, we are left with no other alternative, then to restrict the order only to the stay application. 3. The applicants challenge the order dated May, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, Ghaziabad, whereby demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 65,58,311/- has been confirmed on M/s. Paharpur Plastics, a unit of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., under provisions of Rule 57-I and 57U of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and has also ordered payment of interest under Rule 57-I and 57U of the said Rules read with Section 11AB of the said Act and has imposed equal amount of penalty. 4. The challenge to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l duty is required to be paid, it is the contention on behalf of the applicants that, the provisions of Rule 57AB(1)(b) explanation would apply and accordingly, when the inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory, the manufacturer of the final product is required to pay the appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon as if such inputs or capital goods have been manufactured in the factory and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice prescribed under the Rule 52A. According to the learned advocate for the applicants, the provisions of Rule 57F in such cases would not apply. He further submitted that, undisputedly, the inputs were procured prior to 1997, but they were disposed of after 1st April, 2000 and at the rele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is submitted on behalf of the Department that, the applicants themselves had reported the Department about the closure of the unit as long back on 24-9-1999 and, therefore, the contention that the applicants can still avail the credit in relation to the inputs or capital goods lying in stock cannot be entertained. 8. As observed above, the Tribunal in its earlier order has already held that, the factory is in legal existence though actual process of manufacture is not being conducted in the factory at present. Being so, as far as second point, which is sought to be canvassed, is concerned, prima facie, it would not be permissible for the authority to insist for payment of duty in relation to such products at this stage. Obviousl....