2003 (5) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - M/s. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. have filed this Appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 1166/2001, dated 31-12-2001 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,20,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- against them. 2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngly the facility of proforma credit under Rule 56 A was not available; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order, has rejected their Appeal. He further, submitted that the learned Assistant Commissioner has held that credit under Rule 56A was allowable to the Appellants as the inputs and the final product both were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is admitted fact that the Appellants had brought Napthalene as inputs and same Napthalene have been removed by them as such from the factory by debiting the credit under RG 23A Part 2. We find that if no credit was available to the Appellants in respect of Napthalene brought by them as inputs, the question of paying any duty on the clearance of Napthalene as such also does not arise. It is also n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X