9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit allowed - Appeal No. E/ESM-86/2005 - Final Order No. A-707/KOL/2007 - Dated:- 20-4-2007 - [Order per] - The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that the respondent instead of taking exemption of excise duty on the Inner Frame and Slide manufactured in its factory and ultimately used for manufacture of the final product in terms of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-95 gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent submitted that there was nothing brought out on record nor even in Show Cause Notice as to how Revenue was prejudiced when the respondent paid excise duty on the Inner Frame and Slide and such duty was availed as credit against the duty-liability in respect of the final product manufactured using such duty-paid goods. Also he submitted that there was no compulsion by the Notification on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en his argument, he relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad v. Narayan Polyplast - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) and further submitted that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in C.C.E Cus., Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) also fortifies his view. Therefore, Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the other side. In absence of any finding in the Order-in-Original that Revenue was prejudiced, it can only be appreciated that the case has Revenue- neutral effect. 4.2. Revenue has also failed to bring out that the valuation of the inner frame and slide was below the normal value at the material period of time. Had there been such a case, it could have been appreciated that Revenue was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
