2011 (2) TMI 1221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent   JUDGMENT   S.B. Deshmukh, J   1. We have heard learned Counsel Ms. S. Linhares for the appellant and Mr. H.K. Maingi for the respondent.   2. The respondent, in this appeal is a manufacturer of washing machines and dryers. The respondent has been availing the CENVAT/MODVAT provided under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. The appeal filed on behalf of the respondent was considered. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT upheld the duty payable by reducing penalty to Rs.15,000/-. In other words, amount of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../revenue states that issue is now no more in existence as the issue has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India V/S Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008(231) E.L.T. 3(S.C.) is made available to us. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have noticed paragraph 2 of the Judgmen....