TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of a common order of the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) disposed of these appeals in the impugned order confirmed the demands under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 57-I and the penalties imposed under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Rules, 2002 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. After hearing the stay applications for some time it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Acts and Rules, the department cannot recover the amount short paid (always assuming that there is short payment in this case). This view is held by CEGAT in the case of Pushpaman Forgings v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2002 (149) E.L.T. 490 (Tri.) = 2000 (48) RLT 107 (Tri.) and this was later upheld by the Supreme Court [2003 (153) E.L.T. A89 (S.C.)]. 4. In the present case an amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esult thereof. The Commissioner while citing the order of the Tribunal ignores the fact that the Tribunal also observed. "No demands in this case as made out and confirmed as regards the 'amounts' under Rule 57CC could be upheld and orders thereto are required be set aside". It is clear from the show cause notices issued in this regard that the issue pertains to short payment of amount required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame to the appellants. We do not know whether the original authority has done this exercise and if so any amount is demanded from the appellants. The Commissioner observes that the appellants manufacture both dutiable and non-dutiable products viz. Diesel Engine chargeable to duty and PD Pumps Sets attracting nil rate of duty. Both the said products are manufactured out of common inputs on which f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
