TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Shri R.C. Shukla for the Central Excise Department. Shri Nishant Misra appears for the respondents. In this Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, the following questions of law, have been framed for consideration of the Court. "(i) Whether MODVAT Credit can be availed by the assessee on the basis of certificate issued by su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....89, dated 5-9-1997, on the strength of the certificate issued by Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise, Meerut. A show cause notice dated 31-3-1998 was issued to the respondent-assessee. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-III, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 29-9-1999, confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,63,676/-. The appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals), Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the point of clearance of the glass shells. The Tribunal did not agree with the department that these glass shells were removal from the stock of inputs in a clandestine manner, and found that in any case, the assessee firm has been penalized. 4. It is submitted by Shri R.C. Shukla that the Company was required to follow Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present case, the certi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention of the learned counsel for the department that the goods on which the duty has been paid, if they were removed from the factory premises either for the shortage of space or that the goods were required to be polished, would not get the benefit of Modvat credit on re-entry. 7. In the order awarding penalty, there is no such finding that the goods were brought from outside the factory, ....