9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., have filed this appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 377-78-C.E./DLH/2002 dated 3-7-2002 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty and penalty against them. 2. Shri Suresh Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture both dutiable as well as exempted goods in two separate portions of their factory; that they availed the facility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty. Alternatively, the ld. Advocate submitted that if duty is held to be payable by them, they should be allowed to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on the input. Finally, he submitted that no penalty is imposable on them as has been held by the Tribunal in their own case under Final Order No. 527/2001/B, dated 19-11-2001 [2002 (140) E.L.T. 230 (T)]. 3. Countering the arguments, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te and scrap cleared from a factory in which any other excisable goods other than exempted goods are manufactured. The admitted fact of the present case is that the appellants are manufacturing both excisable as well as exempted goods in the same factory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) held that the benefit of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
