2023 (5) TMI 1079

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Adjudicating Authority has been upheld with interest. 2. The appellant claims to be a contract manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing biscuits for its principal Parle Biscuits. 3. The appellant claims that it was authorised by Parle Biscuits to manufacture, on its behalf, "biscuits" and to comply on its behalf all the procedural formalities contemplated under the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Excise Act] and the Rules framed thereunder in respect of the goods manufactured on behalf of Parle Biscuits and also to furnish information relating to the price at which Parle Biscuits would sell the said biscuits in order to enable the determination of the value of the said goods under section 4A of the Excise Act. 4. The inputs used for manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between its own manufacturing plants and its contract manufacturing units, including Krishna Food, under rule 7(d) of the CENVAT Rules. 7. Four show cause notices were issued to the appellant to show cause as to why the CENVAT credit of service tax distributed by Parle Biscuits to the appellant should not be denied. The appellant filed a reply. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 07.01.2015, confirmed the demand and imposed penalty upon the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant to assail the said order of the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 24.11.2017. 8. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Parle Biscuits was....