2009 (11) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal of the Revenue is against Appellate Commissioner's order classifying the goods in question under Heading 96.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The respondent has filed written submissions styled as "Cross Objections". 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The classification dispute admittedly stands settled in favour of the Revenue and, accordingl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supreme Court's decision on classification of the goods, this Bench held that the benefit of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs was admissible to the assessee where they were required to pay duty on the final product. 4. Following the case law cited by the learned counsel, we hold classification of the goods for the period of dispute in favour of the Revenue and also hold the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... positions with their own arguments, it can hardly be said that the assessee was conducting themselves with intent to evade payment of duty. Even in the present appeal, there is no specific ground raised in favour of any penalty on the assessee, nor is there any prayer for imposing penalty on them. The appellant has not made out any case for a penalty on the respondent under Rule 25. 6. In the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X