TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the same Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh [Order-in-Appeal Nos. 441-443/Ce/CHD-I/01, dated 28-9-2001]. Accordingly, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of under this common order. 2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the duty demand after adjusting Modvat credit and duty amount alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as cum-duty values in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres v. C.C.E. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 and of the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Maruri Udyog Ltd. [2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 4. The appeals of the Revenue contend that no adjustment towards Modvat credit was to be allowed since the Assistant Commissioner had reversed his order of condonation of delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty short-levied is not required to be imposed as a rule, invariably in all cases. Therefore, Revenue's contention in regard to quantum of penalty has to fail. Their contention regarding Modvat credit also cannot be accepted. Assistant Commissioner had allowed condonation of delay to the appellants in regard to the filing of Modvat declaration. Therefore, we find no error in the action of the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
