9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd both sides. 2. The appellants filed these appeals against a common impugned order. In this case demand is confirmed after denying credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods on which no duty has been paid. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Brass Copper components and Hypodermic Needles. Hypodermic Needles are exempted from payment of duty whereas other items are liable to central excise duty. Some of the inputs are common which are used in the manufacture of both the items. The appellants availing credit in respect of duty paid common inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods. The appellants are clearing the exempted go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the appellants is that the appellants were registered with the revenue authorities for manufacture of goods which require to be cleared on payment of duty, and therefore, as per the provision of Central Excise Rules they are entitled to take credit on common inputs, and they were required to clear the goods on payment of 8% of sale price of the goods. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that during March, 2000 to February, 2002 the appellants had not manufactured and cleared any goods on which duty has been paid. They are only manufacturing exempted goods. Therefore, during the financial year, 2000-01 and 2001-02 the appellants are not entitled for credit in respect of duty paid inputs as the goods manufactured out of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on the appellants is justified. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and as some portion of the demand is time barred the penalty is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. In respect of individual penalty on Shri Narender Kumar Jain, Director, I find that in his first statement he specifically mentioned that they are manufacturing goods on which duty is being paid but when he was confronted with the factual position that during this period the appellants had not cleared any goods on payment of duty he retracted from his first statement and admitted the fact. In theses circumstances he is also liable for penalty. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
