Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (5) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellate Tribunal, New Delhi  (for short 'the Tribunal) in Appeal No. E/228/2000-B. 4. Respondent-assessee manufacturer Cellular Sheets falling under heading 3921.00, Helmet inserts falling under heading 6501.90, Styrene Monomer falling under heading 2902.00, Polystyrene Beads falling under heading 3903.00, Polystyrene Expandable in Powder form and Reclaimed Plastics containers, both falling under heading 3903.00 in addition to Cellular articles for the conveyance or packing of the articles of plastics falling under headings 3923.90 and 3924.90. 5. Government of India issued Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2nd June, 1998 providing therein the exemption from payment of duty on articles falling under headings 3923.90 and 3924.90 with t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in   and   from   the same   registered   factory   premises   and   have   been simultaneously   availing   MODVAT   facility   for   the remaining   goods.     The   exemption   notification   under condition at Sl. No.10 restricts the manufacturer from availing of MODVAT facility in respect of even any other   products   being   manufactured   in   the   same factory." 7. The Show Cause Notice was made absolute. 8. Aggrieved   against   the   order&n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rity-in-original.  Tribunal accepted the appeal by observing: "....As it is not the case of the department that the appellants (respondent herein) have availed of credit of duty paid on any   other product manufactured in the same factory, the benefit of notification   No.5/1998 (Sl.No.68)   cannot   be   denied   to   the   impugned goods....." 10. Counsel for the revenue contended that the above-mentioned finding given by the Tribunal is contrary to the record and the case put forth before the Tribunal. Mr. V.Lakshmikumarn, learned advocate appearing for the respondent   submits   that   the credit taken by the respondent u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates