2013 (12) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are arising out of a common order. Hence both the applications are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. There is a demand of Rs.15,15,056.73 and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest on M/s. Catazyme India which is the main noticee and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on M/s. Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., who is claimed to be the principal manufacturer. 3. Heard both sides and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a in the case of ITEL Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - 2012 (275) ELT 145 (Ker.). He also submits that they are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 230/80-CE dated 6.7.1988. He submits that the chemicals and residues were used for re-strengthening the spent catalyst. 4. The learned AR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He drew the attention o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of availment of CENVAT credit and removal of goods under Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel that the duty is payable by the principal manufacturer. It is evident from the orders that the applicant manufactured the goods and therefore duty liability is on them. Hence, the applicants have not made a prima facie case for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X