9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which demand of Rs. 62,854/- with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been confirmed against them. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period in dispute (September, 1999), cleared their product known as NFMD System with Accessories valued at Rs. 7,85,680/- without payment of duty under Notification No. 10/97- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch they could not be called upon to pay duty at 8% of the price of the cleared goods under exemption notification. But we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned Counsel. Under Rule 57CC(9) of the Rules, the appellants were duty bound to maintain separate inventory and accounts for the modvatable inputs intended to be utilised by them in the manufacture of exempted goods, but ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the duty demand under this Rule had been rightly raised and confirmed against the appellants by the authorities below. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 4. Another argument of the learned Counsel that no mechanism has been provided for the recovery of the amount under Rule 57CC and as such the demand could not be confirmed, is also wholly mis-conceived. The recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
