2003 (7) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The learned Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants paid additional duty at the rate of 10% instead of 18% during the period in question. 3. The contention of the appellant is that as per budget for the year 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Divya Enterprises Ltd., reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) where Hon ble Supreme Court allowed such adjustment. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants had paid less additional excise duty. Therefore, they are liable to pay differential duty. 5. We find that there is no dispute on the fact that ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X