9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Prabhat Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellant M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd., Kanpur are manufacturers of detergent powder and detergent cake which are assessable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned order confirms the following duty demands :- (i) amounting to Rs. 86,156/- leviable on 23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s raw materials used in the manufacture of soaps and therefore, should not be treated as soap and assessed accordingly. It is also pointed out that the sweepings in question were sold at a much lower price than the price of soaps and thus normal sale price should be treated as assessable value. 3. We are unable to appreciate the basis for assessing floor sweepings at the price of soaps. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the detergent cake is not an input and therefore, the assessee should not have taken Modvat credit in respect of this item. The undisputed facts in this regard are that the appellant markets a product called 'Ariel Super Soaker and Bar'. This is a composite pack of soap powder and soap cake/bar. The appellant obtains the soap bar from outside but manufactures the soap powder. Duty is paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant to the issue. There are no two definitions in the Central Excise law for the purpose of levying duty as manufacture and for granting input credit. If at all, the position is more liberal with regard to input credit, as it allows credit in respect of any item used in or in relation to the manufacture. We, therefore, hold the finding on this score to be wholly illegal and set aside the duty de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts issued by persons who registered themselves as dealers up to 31st December, 1994 should be accepted as valid and credit allowed. We find that the time for registration ended in December, 1994. The impugned order was passed on 28-11-1995. The appellants produced no evidence regarding registration of the dealers before the Commissioner. They have produced no such evidence regarding registration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
