2013 (2) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 30 of CETA, 1985. The appellants manufactured both dutiable as well as exempted product and in the process of manufacture of the same, they used common inputs/packing materials without maintaining separate inventory/records as required under Rule 57C and Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, a demand was issued to them on 26.3.03 for recovery of modvat credit of Rs.1,48,630/- wrongly availed by them during the period 1998-1999 to 2001-2002 under Rule 57 (1) (ii) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said demand was confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dated 28.09.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s submitted that the balance amount was not considered on the ground that the amount of Rs.41,482.55 against 13 invoices were already considered at the time of issuing impugned notice and another amount of Rs.9873.85 was the difference between the duty amount of Rs.31,695.85 against balance 13 Nos. of Invoices and the input credit on PVC films showed in the demand notice as Rs.21,822.00. It is his submission that the aforesaid amount was not considered solely on the ground that the benefits were already extended in the impugned notice. However, the entire show-cause notice is calculated on pro rata basis and not on actual basis. The contention is that the benefits that were extended to them in the said notice as now contended by the Departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants in the form of invoices by filing an affidavit, the ld. A.R. has submitted that he has no objection for admitting these evidences under Rule 23 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The ld. A.R. himself offered to verify the said documents and after verification along with other records produced by the appellants, namely, original RG 23A Part I Register and respective Invoices, submitted that in the respective invoices, there had been no endorsement about the availment of credit indicating the RG 23A Part II Entry No. nor any defacement of the original invoices by the respective Range Superintendent as was required at the relevant material time, which indicate no credit had been availed against all these input invoices. The ld. A....