9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. The present applicants are manufacturers of footwears. They availed themselves of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the footwear and cleared the footwear on payment of Central Excise duty. Part of the Central Excise duty payment was from the credit taken on inputs. The duty paid was also recovered from the buyers of footwear. The amount of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have submitted that it was a manufacturer s option as to whether to pay duty on the goods manufactured by him or avail himself of exemption. The appellant in the present case chose to pay duty. It is their contention that once Central Excise duty is paid on the goods, Modvat credit automatically flowed on the inputs used. During the hearing of the case, the appellant s Counsel also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, that demand being not a duty amount, grant of stay under Section 35F was not permissible. 5. In the present case the appellants paid duty on the footwear in question and recovered the same from the buyers. What was paid and what was recovered was duty of excise. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the duty demand now made is a double claim for payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
