2003 (3) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per: S.S Kang, Member (J)]. All the three appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeals are being taken together. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997. Appellants availed the benefit of deemed credit on the basis of above m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n and Steel Rolling Mills (3) M/s. Dhiman Industries (4) M/s. Guru Arjan Iron and Steel Rolling Mills (5) M/s. Quality Steel. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the above-mentioned manufacturer of the inputs filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner whereby their duty liabilities were fixed under the Compounded Leavy Scheme and the Tribunal vide Final Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd on verification it was found that M/s. Quality Steel has not discharged their liabilities as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. In these appeals, the issue is whether the manufacturer of the inputs had paid appropriate duty in respect of the goods supplied to the appellants and the appellants are entitled for the deemed credit in view of the notification. The appeals filed by variou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X