TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. The demand for central excise duty of Rs. 24,884/- towards the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 has been confirmed against the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellants had availed benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and No. 30/2004-C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest. 2. Heard both the sides. Ld. Advocate submits that the Original Adjudicating Authority had satisfied himself and had explained that production register was maintained separately in respect of the exempted goods and the Board s circular did not prescribe specific records but had issued instructions that separate accounts should be maintained. 3. Since a short issue is involved, we waive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of exempted goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. It is also appearing that no separate Books of Accounts for dutiable as well as exempted goods were manufactured by the said respondent. Thus it is possible that the respondent might have taken the credit of duty paid on yarn (input) used in the manufacture of grey fabrics (final product), which would have been ultimately cleared b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of evidences and records available before him. He has not examined the decision of the adjudicating authority and has not explained why he is differing from him. It is also noticed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Shri Vijay B. Shah, Advocate reiterated the points mentioned in the memorandum of appeal whereas the appellant was the Department and the advocates had appeare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
