9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. E/1456 & 1457/2007 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri C J Mathew, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per : Justice Dr. Satish Chandra Both the appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal No: 060 to 061/2007 dated 17/08/2007. The period of dispute is March 1999 to August 2000 and September 2001 to December 2001. 2. The issue is regarding additional excise duty on the bleached cotton fabrics as the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic coated fabrics. 3. Heard Ms. Anjali Hirawat and Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted fabrics through the PLA during the period in question. 16.1 The above two facts remain undisputed. The appellants have taken this point in their reply to the show cause notice and also in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower authorities have not rebutted these facts. The learned SDR obviously has not read the reply and appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) filed by the appellants, while contending that the appellants had not directly taken the plea of revenue neutrality before the lower authorities. In fact, the lower authorities have not given any finding on the above submission of the appellants. 17. We now refer to some case laws mentioned below, which hold that no demand can be raised when the situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid duty at the last stage i.e., at the coated stage. The appellants are entitled to the credit of duty at the intermediate stage and hence demand on intermediate stage is not maintainable. 17.3 The Hon ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the demand raised by the Revenue is equal to the credit available to the assessee, then the demand is not maintainable. In this connection, the following judgements of the Supreme Court are relied upon. (i) CCE v. Narayan Polyplast - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) (ii) CCE v. Narmada Chematur - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) (iii) CCE v. Coca-Cola India - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.). 17.4 The assessee in CCE v. Dharampal Satyapal - 2008-TIOL-2031-CESTAT-DEL was engaged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
