TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed by the appellants against the impugned order in original, the issue relates to excisability and duty liability of products namely Meat, Tallow/Tallow Waste, Bone and Soft, St. and Int/Head and Hooves/Brain/Neck, Hides manufactured by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand in respect of these products against the appellants for the period 1-4-1999 to 2-10-2000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of duty, the show cause notice was served on them vide which the duty demand was raised. They even before issuance of that notice, on realising that they had earlier also wrongly cleared the goods in question without payment of duty, deposited duty amount of Rs. 27,27,841/- for the previous period. 3. Since the appellants did not dispute the excisability of the goods in question before the adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Notification No. 8/97 only the finished goods and not other goods such as rejects or scrap. This contention of the Counsel in our view deserves to be accepted. The proviso appended to the principal Notification No. 8/97 through the above referred Notification No. 7/98, only enacts that nothing contained in this notification shall apply where such finished products, if manufactured and cleared by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifying the duty amount, the statutory deduction treating price as cum duty price has not been allowed to the appellants and the same deserves to be allowed. 6. However, the arguments of the learned Counsel that confirmation of duty of Rs. 27,27,841/- is illegal as it was not raised in the show cause notice, cannot be accepted. This duty amount was deposited by the appellants before the receipt of....