TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 4/2006-C.E. (Sl. No. 78) as their final products have been manufactured mainly out of plastic waste and scrap. If this plea of the Department is accepted, the appellant’s duty liability would be nil. By availing exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., the appellant have got refund by way of self-credit of the duty which had been paid by them through PLA. Thus so far as the appellant are concerned, this is a revenue neutral situation, as irrespective of whether the appellant availed Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. or Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. (Sl. No. 78) their net duty liability would be nil - Stay granted. - E/1454/2012 - Stay Order No. 1587/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 30-8-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Rakesh Kumar, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of total duty amount of Rs. 9,34,459/- alleged to have been erroneously refunded were issued. The show cause notices also sought recovery of interest on allegedly erroneously refunded duty and imposition of penalty. These show cause notices also sought recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,162/- availed by the appellant, as according to the department since the appellant s product was fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., they could not avail the Cenvat credit. These show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 27-5-2011 by which the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9,34,459/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Ms. Ranjana Jha, learned Jt. CDR, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that since the appellant had manufactured PVC/PE granules pre-dominantly out of plastic scrap/waste, the duty exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. (Sl. No. 78), which is an unconditional exemption was applicable, and that since the appellant s final product was fully exempt from duty, they were neither eligible for Cenvat credit nor they were eligible for the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. She, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
