9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Shri R.K. Singla, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The appellants are required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 37,16,263/- being the 8% of the value of by-products cleared by them which are excisable but exempted under Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The grievance of the appellant is that they have reversed the credit availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint. He also submits that the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahakari Chini Mill Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 119 (T-NZB) in identical situation had been maintained by the Supreme Court as reported in 2006 (193) E.L.T. A194 (S.C.). The Tribunal had given an order in party s favour, in the case of CCE v. Shakumbari Sugar Allied Industries Ltd. - 2004 (176) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned JCDR stresses that even if it is per incuriam, it has to be followed for the purpose of ordering for pre-deposit of the amounts. 4. On a careful consideration, we notice that this Bench has already dealt with a similar matter in the cases of M/s. Ravindra Solvent Oils Private Ltd; M/s. JSW Ltd. and another which has also referred to an earlier order of Mumbai Bench in the case of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
