2011 (6) TMI 798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... P. BABU: This is an appeal filed by M/s. Modern Petrofils against the Order-in-Appeal No. Commr.(A)/127/VDR-II/2006, dt.10.08.06. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Polyester chips falling under sub-heading 3907.60 of CETA, Partially Oriented Yarn (PTY) falling under sub-heading 5402.32 and Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) falling under sub-heading 5402.52 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....54.02. However, there was no specific exemption notification that exemption notification that exempted NCCD imposed on POY cleared for captive consumption. 3. On adjudication, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty and directed the company to pay interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and rejected the assessee's appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tra Trucks India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2008 (227) ELT 269 (Tri-Chennai)  (ii) CCE, Trichy vs. Kulavi Tobacco industry reported in 2008 (227) ELT 416 (Tri-Chennai) 3. As regards clearances to 100% EOUs, he submits that in the case of Toyota Krloskar Motor Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2007(217) ELT 403 (Tri-Bang), it was held that NCCD is not leviable in....