GONTERMANN PEIPERS (I) LTD. Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common Order -in -appeal dated 18.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal No. E/1815/01 -NB has been filed by the assessee for challenging the correctness of the impugned order to the extent to which it has gone against him, while appeal No. E/1816/01 -NB has been filed by the Revenue for questioning the correctness of the impugned order to the extent to which the matter has been decided against them by the Commissioner (Appeals). The facts are not much in dispute. The assessees are engaged in the manufacture of 100% cotton yarn and blended yarn. They are availing the facility of modvat credit. On checking their RT -12 returns for the period March, 1998 to July, 1999, it revealed that they had wrongly debited the additional duty of excise, leviable under section 3 of the Additional duties of excises (Textile and Textiles Articles) Act, 1978, from their RG 23A PT. II and RG 23C Part -II of basic excise duty account maintained by them. Show cause notices accordingly were issued to them requiring them to pay back the duty debited by them from the wrong account. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. A.C. confirmed the demand through the Order -in -Original and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order allowed the appeal partly by holding that debiting of AED (TTA) from BED account maintained in RG 23C Pt. II (Rule 57 -Q) by the appellants was correct, while debiting of AED (TTA) from BED account maintained in RG 23A Pt. II (Rule 57 -A) was incorrect and also reduced penalty to Rs. 25,000/ -.

(2.) BOTH sides have come up in appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) ON the other hand, learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.