2017 (1) TMI 1315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER It is submission of learned counsel that the issues framed in the adjudication order in para 14 thereof are without evidence. The authority framed the issue for two products sold by the appellant to Indian Navy availing exemption under a Notification. Both goods were manufactured for Defence Department making exclusive use of an input....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely used for exempted goods manufactured for Indian Navy. When there was no use of the common input for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, payment of 8% value of the goods does not arise. What that is necessity of law is that there should not be admissibility of MODVAT credit due to exclusive use of the input for manufacture of exempted goods. 4.  Learned AR also says that the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the quantum of deposit required by Commission. Therefore, application for settlement was rejected without the Commission looking into the merits of the case. This is specifically recorded in para 9 of the Commission's order. Therefore, merit in the case is open for the Tribunal to look into that afresh. 8.  When the merit is looked into, nothing is apparent from the adjudication order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the material period only using the input in question. In absence of any evidence to show that the appellant has not used the input commonly with others for manufacture of exempted goods as well as dutiable goods, proposition of the appellant that 8% demand on the value of the goods cleared to the Indian Navy is justified. 9.  To put an end to the issue, which is running for the las....