9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Both the appeals are disposed of by a single order. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic packing bags and laminated un-laminated printed film, falling under Chapter 39 of CETA, 1985. 2. Investigations were conducted at their end and it was found that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which culminated into an order passed by Jt. Commissioner confirming demand of Rs. 9,31,034/- and imposing personal penalty of identical amount. In addition, Modvat credit of Rs. 10,931/- was also denied, which the appellant have debited and are not contested. The said order of Jt. Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. The appellants have not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is one and the same, issuance of one show cause notice cannot be held so as to hold the proceedings as void. 5. Apart from the above, it stand contended by learned advocate that their final product, in any case, was exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. and No. 5/98-C.E. As such, they were not required to pay any duty and the differential duty now being confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put. The period involved in the present cases is March 98 to 2001. As such, at the most, it can be said that the differential duty for the period March 98 to June 98 is not liable to be confirmed on account of the fact that the goods were exempted, though the appellant has chosen to pay duty. Inasmuch as the facts as regards availment of modvat credit of duty are not clear and benefit of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
