9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant and Shri K. Sanyal, JDR for the Respondent. 2. Mr. Chakraborty submits that so far the decantation losses is concerned they did not contest the appeal to that extent. They have calculated the amount on this account 28132.28 as per revised calculation and they have already paid Rs. 49556.20 before issue of show cause notice. He submits that the Modvat credit on quantity lost during tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estressed Concrete Products P. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 542 (Tri.-Bang.). (b) Arvind Chemi Synthetic (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. - Del.). Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has not made any observation regarding penalty. Therefore he submits that the Appeal may be allowed. 4. Ld. JDR submits that in present case the quantum of loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit not be denied on such difference in weight-Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." Similar view has expressed in the case of Bhoruka Textiles Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 583 and Hindustan Lever Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (VII) - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 273. 6. So far the penalty is concerned in present case the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
