2002 (2) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufactures Auto parts and availed of exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 for the clearances of excisable goods made from both the units during the financial year 2000-2001; that while declaring the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year 1999-2000, they did not include the value of goods which were received back under the provisions of Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules as they bona fidely believed that the same was not includible in the value of the clearance; that they, on being pointed out, had voluntarily paid the duty Rs. 3,71,505 and they never contested the levy of the duty; that the circumstances which led them not to include the value of rejected goods rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d should be reduced to the minimum possible. 3.1 On the other hand, Ms. Krishna Mishra, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner Appeal while allowing the Modvat credit in respect of rejected goods received in the factory observed that the Adjudication order does not discuss the process undertaken and whether the rejected goods were subjected to the process of re-manufacture. Accordingly, the adjudicating officer is directed to allow Modvat credit if the condition laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment is satisfied." Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E [2000 (119) E.L.T. 711 (T)]. 3.2 She mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) however, set aside the penalty of Rs. 39,283 imposed on the count of avail....