9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No.E/1560/2005 - Final Order No. 189/2007-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 15-1-2007 - [Order per] - The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts. These parts are cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty. 2. During the period July 2001 to December 2003, the appellant brought back to its factory 6,566 nos. of duty paid gears, upon return from the market. Cenvat credit equivalent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was a case of inputs being used for manufacture and, therefore, credit taken could not be recalled. Contention was also raised that the demand is not sustainable in as much as the appellant had not suppressed any facts. These contentions were rejected in adjudication as well as in first appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 5. I have perused records and heard both sides at length. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, demand made in the impugned order is sustainable. However, penalty would not be justified in as much as this is not a case of failure to account for inputs brought into the factory or removal of inputs without payment duty. 7. In the result, the appeal is ordered by confirming the duty demand and setting aside the penalty. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
