9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal Nos. 374-75/CE/CHD/94, dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Tyres of Moped Bicycles falling under Chapter 40 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing the benefit of Modvat scheme. During the month of April, 1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also imposed personal penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondent filed appeal and vide impugned order the appeal was allowed. 3. Shri V. Sethi, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Respondent took credit on the basis of duty and personal penalty paid by the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order specifically held that there is no denying of the fact that duty was paid, therefore when the duty was paid on an input the Respondents are eligible for taking Modvat credit in respect of the duty. She further, submitted that the ld. Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order also gave the specific findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Modvat declaration dated 1-7-1992 filed with the competent authority. He also gave a specific finding that a duty in question was deposited by the manufacturers from their own account and no duty has been deposited by the present respondent. Therefore, present Respondent s claim that they had deposited the duty which was rejected. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
