9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/344/2006, dated 23-11-2006. 2. The respondent is absent despite notice nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass and appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondents. 3. Considered the submissions made by ld. SDR and perused the records. It is his subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants have deposited excess amount on the Modvated inputs not used in the Final Product but used as replacement in the Final Product during the Guarantee period. During the material period, the provision of Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were in existence which were independent of Section 11A provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. As the present case is regarding recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is has been laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Suvidhe Limited v. UOI, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 and the principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Co. v. CCE, Jaipur, 1999 (114) E.L.T. 371. [Refer Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Rajkot, Trade Notice No. 106/2000, dated 23-10-2000. [2000 (122) E.L.T. 8]. In the above case laws, the issue inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding penalty and interest was less than amount which was deposited by the respondent at the time of investigation. If that be so, the excess amount which was deposited by the respondent during the course of investigation cannot be held back and credited the Consumer Welfare Fund. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as laid down by the various higher judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
