9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal, dated 28-5-2003 vide which duty of Rs. 3,04,800/- with equal amount of penalty against the company appellant No. 1 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- against its finance controller appellant No. 2 and of Rs. 50,000/- against its excise officer appellant No. 3, have been confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o of law laid down in the case of Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 494 wherein it has been observed that where there had been different views expressed at different stages by the authorities and the Supreme Court was also not clear about the applicability of law and the authorities had been issuing classifications from time to time, in such a situation neither exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by a layman did not leave any doubt that the Modvat credit on the imported inputs could be claimed by the importer only if the duty was paid in cash. Admittedly, no duty was paid in cash by the company appellant No. 1. Mere getting of the entry in the DEPB at the time of clearance of imported inputs did not amount to payment of duty in cash. The company had their own excise officer who is appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
