9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Vaidya, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. The Asstt. Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 27-12-2007, confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,41,750/- and imposed penalties of Rs. 4,93.175/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 23-5-08, confirmed the demand of duty but set aside the penalties imposed. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect recovery of the penalties, which is not permissible at the interim stage. This issue can be taken up at the time of final hearing of the case. 6. So far as the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is concerned, the facts are that the assessee is a manufacturer of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee sent papers in roll to the job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coating of paper because neither the inputs are receipted in the factory of the assessee nor the assessee is the buyer of the chemicals. 7. Rule 3(1)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 makes it mandatory that the inputs must be received in the factory of the assessee. Rule 4(1) ibid also mandates like-wise. Therefore, prima facie, the credit has been availed by the assessee in violation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived in the factory of the appellants for the manufacture of automotive components, whereas in the case before us, the chemicals and other inputs have not been received in the factory of the assessee. 9. Prima facie, the assessee has not made out a strong case for the complete waiver for the pre-deposit of the demand of duty of Rs. 13,41,750/-. The assessee has not pleaded any financial hardship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
