9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are that the appellants are cigarette manufacturers and Cut Tobacco is the main raw material in the manufacture of cigarettes. Cut tobacco was liable to duty and the duty paid on cut tobacco was set off against the duty payable on cigarettes at the time of clearance of cigarettes under Notification No. 355/86, dated 24-6-1986. Modvat credit was extended to cigarettes under Notification No. 69/95, dated 16-3-1995 and simultaneously notification providing for set off duty was rescinded. The Modvat claim in dispute in the instant case relates to the cut tobacco contained in the cigarette in stock and rip tobacco in stock, (rip tobacco is cut tobacco obtained by slitting of rejected cigarettes). 3. The appellants claim was that under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submitted that Notification No. 355/86 was an exemption notification exempting cigarettes from the equal amount of duty as had been paid on the cut tobacco contained in the cigarettes under clearance. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant could not have availed himself of the set off in respect of cut tobacco in stock, contained in the cigarette in stock and rip tobacco. As the notification allowing set off was rescinded simultaneously with the introduction of Modvat credit on cigarettes, the appellant could not also have made use of set off benefit after 15-3-1995 with the introduction of Modvat credit. He also submitted that reliance placed by the Commissioner on the decision of CEGAT in C.C.E. v. Sirpur Paper Mills [1996 (82) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Sirpur Paper Mills case may not be apt in the facts of the present case as the notification involved in that case and the present case are very different. We also find that the set off claims of the appellants are also to be seen separately from the Modvat claims. We therefore feel that the matter is required to be reconsidered in the correct perspective by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the requirement for pre-deposit of duty and penalty demands are waived and appeal taken up for consideration and is disposed of by way of remand. 8. It is accordingly ordered that the adjudicating authority should reconsider the case in accordance with law after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case and in the light of ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
