9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate, the true purport of the Modvat Scheme and the procedure enunciated under Notification No.214/86-CE which govern the movement of inputs for job worked goods and is under obligation to return the goods without payment of duty where as by the impugned order the duty paid by the job worker was allowed as credit which is against the letter and spirit of law? 2) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the duty paid by the job worker as credit to the assessee which is not actually the duty leviable on the job worked goods but the said duty is the amount of duty attributable to the duty involved on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of job worked goods b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proposed to demand duty and penalty. 3. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 27,488/- and Rs. 73,294/- respectively and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after following the ratio laid down in various decisions, allowed the appeals. As against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department has filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the records and after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeals holding that it was taken as credit only when they received the control panel from the job worker and this credit was clearly admissible to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the above instruction, for preferring an appeal, monetary limit is fixed and only if the monetary limit exceeds Rs. 2 Lakhs, appeal can be filed. Since the monetary limit in the present case, even as per the order of the Adjudicating Authority is well within the limit of Rs. 2 Lakhs, the present appeals, filed by the Department, are not maintainable. 6. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record. 7. We find, on fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have taken a clear finding that the respondent/assessee had not wrongly ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
