9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dt. 27-10-05 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Excise, Ahemdabad, by which he confirmed the order-in- original in respect of the appellants. 2. Heard the learned authorized representatives for the appellants. Heard the learned DR for the Department. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows (a) M/s. Pushpam Synthetics, appellant in Appeal No. E/264/2006 have procured grey fabr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 2,75,113/ on the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal by the party. (b) M/s. Govind Enterprises is the appellant in Appeal No. E/223/2006 and the facts of the case are similar. The original authority demanded a sum of Rs. 74,716/- wrongly availed credit along with interest but no penalty was imposed. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld but the order of the original auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit under Rule 16. They claim that they receive the processed and duty paid materials from the processor and take credit and then cut; and inspect and clear them on payment of duty. This cannot make them manufacturer. The transitional credit in respect of inputs like grey fabrics was available in respect of stock of raw materials as such, as inputs in process, or as inputs contained in the finis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals). Therefore, the appeals are rejected. 7. It is further submitted in behalf of M/s. Pushpam Synthetics Ltd. that even if it was held that taking credit was wrong, they have paid the duty on the product cleared by them at enhanced value and no mala fide intention is attributable and it was a case of interpreting differently. Therefore, mandatory penalty it by original authority and sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
