9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal dated 31-10-2000 vide which the Commissioner has dropped the demand of Rs. 23,21,245.09 against the respondent. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of detergent. They are receiving detergent powder in bulk from M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. for re-packing the same in small packings under brand name of either Sunlight Detergent powder or 'Surf' of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the allegations in the notice that no manufacturing process was involved in re-packing were baseless. They also averred that show cause notice issued was time-barred and there had been no suppression of material facts by them from the department and as such, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. 3. The Commissioner accepted the version of the respondents and dropped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acking in small containers. All that alleged was that since Modvat credit on the inputs i.e. detergent powder shown as wastage, had no legal backings and as such why it should not be disallowed. But on what account and for what reason had no legal packing, had not been detailed in the show cause notice. However, from para 2 of the show cause notice, all that could be inferred is that by legal back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the inputs is contained in the slugs and other invisible losses. He has also referred to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Varuna Sulphonators (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 42 wherein it had been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that Modvat scheme did not emphasis that during manufacturing process, entire duty paid inputs must be actually consumed but the emphasis was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
