9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent: Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdtt. (AR) ORDER PER: DR.D.M. MISRA This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.P-III/193/VM/09, dt.08.09.2009, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), C.E., Pune-III. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics, falling under Chapter 52, 54 & 55 of Central Excise Tariff A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id order, they filed an appeal before this Tribunal, which was rejected observing that the benefit of exemption was not admissible to them, but remanded the case. In remand proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty again. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who again remanded the matter for re-quantification allowing MODVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period January 1996 to July 1996, demanding duty at each stage of manufacture i.e. bleaching, dyeing and printing, considering that in each stage of the operation, the process resulted into 'manufacture', and the Appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dt.16.03.1995 and also Notification No.121/95-CE, dt.11.03.1995, hence, required to pay duty at each stage. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved, hence the credit cannot be admissible to them, is incorrect and untenable in law. It is his contention that an amount of Rs. 34,84,249/- is the MODVAT benefit admissible to them since the Department has already allowed credit relating to the stage of manufacture of bleaching and dyeing. 4. The learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty at each stage of manufacture i.e. bleaching, dyeing and printing. In other words, while proposing to recover duty, the process of printing was also considered as a process of manufacture. Therefore, denying credit holding that the process of printing does not amount to manufacture, is contrary to the very basis of show cause-cum-demand notice, hence, cannot be sustained. Therefore, MODVAT C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
