TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls by the Department arise out of same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 61-63/CE/AHD/2006, dated 31-1-2008. Three cross-objections are connected to these appeals. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned SDR and perused records. 3. The respondent s company is a manufacturer of excisable goods. They were availing modvat/Cenvat credit on the inputs namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Vijay Kant Aggarwal, Director for the respondent-company and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Hardeep Singh, authorised signatory of the respondent-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of the credit. However, taking note of the fact that the entire disputed amount except to the tune of Rs. 1,37,277/- was paid prior to issue of show cause notice, he set aside the demand for interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment s appeals. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned SDR and perused the records. We have also gone through the grounds of cross-objections filed by the respondents. We find that common inputs have been used for manufacture of excisable goods and also in respect of non-manufacturing activity namely, galvanisation which resulted in emergence of non-excisable products. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as penalty. The prayer of the Department is to enhance the penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs from Rs. 1,37,277/-. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 1,37,277/- may not be required to be interfered with. Order of the original authority does not specifically indicate any omission or commission on the part of the Director and authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
