2000 (10) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants were engaged in the manufacture of spools for motor vehicles etc., and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on the inputs used in or in relation to such manufacture in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. On the basis of information gathered by Central Excise (Preventive) officers, who visited the appellants' factory on 7-7-1994, it was found by the Department that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llants under Rule 173Q(bb) of the Central Excise Rules (CER) for alleged violation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the CER. The party contested the show cause notice. The dispute was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 on the appellants. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)], submitted that such decisions were no longer binding in view of Section 110(2) of the Finance Act, 2000. He, therefore, prayed for rejecting the appeal. 4. We find that the demand of differential duty was raised by the Department on the basis of fresh classification of the product under Chapter sub-heading No. 3923.90 attracting duty @ 30% f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X