9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Aluminium Ingots and Hollow Profiles falling under Chapter heading No. 76012010 and 76042100 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessees are registered with the Central Excise Department and are paying Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by them. The assesses are also availing the CENVA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he actual amount of duty paid on the inputs. In respect of Special Additional Duty of Customs, the CENVAT credit on the goods cannot be allowed during the impugned period 2007-08 to 2008-09. In view of the restriction, the CENVAT credit to the tune of 50% of the duty i.e. Rs. 17,04,272/excess was taken by the appellant. In respect of Special Additional Duty which is wholly restricted under the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this appeal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for appellant Ms. Asmita A. Nayak submitted that the appellants had not availed the benefit of Notification No.23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 and that therefore the demand is not sustainable. Further that the issue involved is covered by the judgments laid in G.R. Poly films Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Kolkatta [2014 (302) ELT 259 (Tri-Kol)] and CCE, Chennai vs Jumbo Bags Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
