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

.... 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 manufactured out of from conventional ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 decisions :- (a)     &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibutable 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)        The following case law and Board Circular were relied ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 been reversed. The dutiable demand at 8% is Rs. 2.69 crores. However, the cr....