TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (DTA) were chargeable to duty on ad valorem basis during the relevant period at the rates specified in Notification 97/91-C.E., dated 7-10-1991 (for clearances up to 26-12-1993) and Notification 101/93-C.E., dated 27-12-1993 (for clearances made after this dates). The respondents cleared hard waste and soft waste to the DTA without payment of duty and hence a show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty of Rs. 5,86,761/- and for imposition of penalty for contravention of the relevant rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide order dated 10-7-1995 confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,787/- in respect of hard waste but dropped the demand in respect of soft waste, holding that such waste generated by a 100% E.O.U. is not excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed on by an assessee at the time of clearance of the goods, having regard to the Tribunal s order in the case of CCE, Madras v. Addision Co. reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 429 and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 SC, and Shri Kulvinder Singh, learned Advocate who contends that the respondents had raised invoices separately showing the value of the goods in question and the element of excise duty, and that the buyers did not pay the duty element for which they raised the debit notes, and that the duty amount was still outstanding from the buyers, as seen from the relevant entries in the ledgers maintained by the respondents, and, therefore, the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otton waste except the respondents herein and, therefore, their customers were purchasing waste on payment of the price of the waste only and without payment of the excise duty levied thereon, and paid by the respondents in whose factory the waste was being generated. This submission has not been found to be factually incorrect. The respondents have explained that their customers issued debit notes only after complete verification and this occasioned the delay between the receipt of the respondents goods by the customers, and the issue of the debit notes. Further we find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the debit notes, but has held the non-issue of corresponding credit notes by the respondents as a factor that goes against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
