9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, who in turn rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter Heading 85 of CETA, 1985 were issued two show cause notices cum demand notices. The first show cause notice cum demand notice was issued by the Range Superintendent for contravention of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used his manufacturing registration number on the invoices issued under Rule 57G/57T, they did not obtain permission of the competent authorities to bring duty paid goods in their premises as per Rule 51A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On due adjudication demand of Rs. 2,03,111/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. On filing appea1, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit and that this procedure was not legal and not proper and that they were liable to pay duty. The second show cause notice dated 9-4-96 alleges that the since the Modvat credit was wrongly passed on to their customer M/s. Bee Electronic Machines Ltd., they were required to pay the said sum under Sec. 11D which applies only to manufacturer of goods who has collected some duty from his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng invoices. Further penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. From the aforesaid submissions made by the assessee and the findings of the original adjudicating authority analysis that of the Commissioner (Appeals) no where the ground taken before me is urged. Even otherwise this aspect has been covered in the finding given by the original adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
