TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent. [Order]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has preferred the present appeal. I have heard Shri S.K. Mall, learned DR for the Revenue and Shri Vinay Kansara, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. The respondents are manufacturer of chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice was issued to the respondents on 29-4-99 seeking to recover the modvat credit of duty involved in the inputs used in the manufacture of the above semi finished goods. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the modvat credit of Rs. 4,17,780/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. On an appeal against the above order Commissioner (Appeals) set a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries [2003 (154) E.L.T. 543 (Tri. - Mum.). 5. After hearing the learned advocate, I find that the rejection for remission of duty on the final product was on the ground that the same does not attract any duty being semi finished goods. Even if I accept the Revenue's contention that remission o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rits are found even in the above ground of the Revenue. 7. The Revenue has further contended that the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Mafatlal should have been followed by Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the said decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Mafatlal was considered by the Larger Bench in the case of Grasim Industries and stand overruled. As such the Revenue's ground is....