2015 (1) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order demanding 8% of the value of clearance of the exempted goods. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a demand of Rs. 16,07,955/- with interest and penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- was confirmed against the respondent by the adjudicating authority on the ground that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Act, 1944 from whole of the duty, therefore the goods manufactured by the respondent are exempted goods and they were not required to pay duty on those goods and the same has been manufactured from the common inputs, therefore required to pay 8% of the value of the goods as per Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned AR. None .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n this case, I also held that although the goods have been manufactured from the common inputs but they have been cleared on payment of duty, therefore the reversal of value of 8% of the goods is not required. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X