2008 (1) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led these appeals against a common impugned order.  In this case demand is confirmed after denying credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods on which no duty has been paid. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Brass & Copper components and Hypodermic Needles.  Hypodermic Needles are exempted from payment of duty wherea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed the penalty.  The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal. 5. The contention of the appellants is that a show cause notice was issued on 1.11.2002 demanding duty for the period October, 2001 to February, 2002.  Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2003 demanding duty for the period March, 2000 to September, 2001 alleging suppression of the facts. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be cleared on payment of duty, and therefore, as per the provision of Central Excise Rules they are entitled to take credit on common inputs, and they were required to clear the goods on payment of 8% of sale price of the goods. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that during March, 2000 to February, 2002 the appellants had not manufactured and cleared any goods on which duty has been paid.&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd duty from October, 2001 to February, 2002 on the same ground.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory has held that when the first show cause notice was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities.  Later on while issuing the second and third show cause notice the same/similar facts should not be taken as suppression of fact on the part of ....