2009 (12) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er the mistaken belief that the same were exempt. The appellants submits that two issues are involved in this appeal. Held that- the spent DEP is mixed with other inputs and sold as cleaning solution on which appropriate duty of excise duty is paid. Hence, the duty demand of Rs. 46,468/-, interest and penalty relating to such amount is set aside. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. - E/38/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on order. In this connection, he cites the following case laws :- (1) K.R. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.) (2) CCE, Rohtak v. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. - 2009 (238) 209 (P H) 3. The second aspect of the case relates to demand of Rs. 46,468/- in respect of Diethyl Phthalte (DEP). The appellants used it in or in relation to the manufacture of main product i.e. perfume, for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned order. She also argues that the appellants have not asked for paying lesser penalty of 25% at the earlier stages of adjudication and first appeal. 5. I have taken into account the fact that in respect of the first demand, the appellants have not contested the duty, interest and the imposition of penalty. They are only praying that they should be given option to pay 25% of the penalty impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X