2006 (4) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The total demand under the impugned order is Rs. 95,998/-. Dispute of Rs. 7,383/- is in regard to Modvat credit taken on filter pads. The remaining Modvat credit has been held to be not due in view of the fact that final product (I.V. Fluid) was exempted from duty under Notification No. 36/2000, dated 4-5-2000. 3. The submission of the ld. Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ong availment of credit requiring return of the credit already made use of. He has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Ashok Iron Steel Fabricators [2002 (140) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal-LB)]. As against this, the submission of the ld. DR is that the Commissioner has made the demand relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raguvar (India) Ltd. v. CCE reported in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit correctly taken and utilized. This position remains settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)]. Therefore, the demand in relation to credit relatable to inputs and finished goods is also not maintainable. 8. Penalty cannot survive in the absence of duty demands. 9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X