9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Arguing for the appellants Shri G. Shivadass submitted that show cause notice was issued on the following grounds :- (a) Duty of Rs. 3,63,445.63 on HDPE tapes captively consumed during the period 19-12-1986 to 2-2-1987 on the ground that the said tapes have been consumed in the manufacture of HDPE render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 20-11-1986. 3. He submitted that with reference to the ground No. (a) and (b) the issue is covered by series of decisions including the following decisions : (a) CCE v. Chitra Polypack Industries - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 290 (b) Auroplast India Limited v. CCE - Order No. 169/89-D, dated 26-6-1989 (c) Primo N Pic Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - Order Nos. E/216-271/90-D (d) Narmada P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntext of the use of the HDPE tapes in the manufacture of HDPE sacks. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides on this issue and on going through the case law referred to above, we find that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee and accordingly assessee succeeds on both the grounds. 6. As regards 3rd ground is concerned, the department has taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore as per Final Order No. 76/97-D, dated 20-1-1997 in Appeal No. E/3434/88-D which has followed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Auro Plast (India) Ltd. as per Order No. 169/89-D, dated 26-6-1989. We find that in the case of Auro Plast (In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... succeed on this issue also. 7. As regards ground No. (d) is concerned the appellants did not press this plea and accordingly this ground is dismissed as such. 8. We find that penalty of Rs. 7 lacs has been imposed in this case as against Rs. 1 lac duty demanded. Since duty amount has been reduced considerably and taking into consideration the plea advance on behalf of the appellants t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
