2005 (8) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(T)]. - This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 8/2004, dated 3-2004/20-4-2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants manufactured different varieties of paper and paper- boards under Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 as amended. The first clearance of 3500 MT of paper and paperboards....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate urged the following points :- (i)         The amount demanded under Rule 57CC as amended/Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 is not duty and hence, no pre-requisite for pre-deposit before hearing need to be deposited in terms of the following decis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....    In the worst case scenario, credit attributable to the manufacture of exempt final product alone has to be reversed. That has already been done by the appellants. (iv)       It would be totally unjust to make a demand of Rs. 2.69 crores when the credit attributable to the exempted goods is only Rs. 4.29 lakhs. (v)     &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not in dispute. They are also not maintaining separate accounts for the inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. Under these circumstances, they are covered by Rule 57CC/Rule 6. However, it is seen that 95% of the goods produced are cleared on payment of duty and 5% are cleared at nil rate of duty. The appellants submit that the credit attributable to exempted final products has already bee....