TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifty-one and paise seventy-four) has been confirmed in Appeal No. E/R-486/2001, on the ground that with the introduction of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 19-4-95 laying down an artificial definition of manufacture in respect of repacking of goods from bulk packs, the appellants became liable to pay duty on repacked goods. Inasmuch as the appellants did not pay the duty during the period from 19-4-95 to 25-5-95, the above duty has been confirmed by the Department. The appellants submission, duly represented by Shri R.N. Bajoria, learned Senior Counsel, is to the effect that they filed a Writ Petition challenging the introduction of the said Chapter Notes in terms of the Finance Bill, 95 for coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being availed by them. He submits that this plea was taken up before the lower authorities, but not favoured with by them. 4. We have also heard the Departmental Representative. 5. The only submission made before us is as regards the extension of benefit of the Credit of Duty paid on the raw materials and inputs used in the manufacture of the repacked goods, on which the duty has been confirmed against the appellants. We agree with the learned Senior Advocate that in case of such subsequent demands, the Modvat credit on the inputs has to be allowed to the assessees and the final demand of duty would get neutralised to that extent. Inasmuch as the exact quantum of Modvat credit available to the appellants, is not before us, we remand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree with the above contention of the appellants. 8. Separate registration of the premises where the activities of repacking and reprocessing are undergoing, is not required, especially when the said area is already registered with the Central Excise Authorities. There is no rebuttal to the appellants plea by the lower authorities that the said area is a part of the blue-print already submitted to the Revenue. As such, we are of the view that the said demand of duty of Rs. 5.71 lakhs (approx.) is not justified. The same is accordingly set aside. Penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousands) imposed upon the appellants on this ground is also set aside. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
