2010 (7) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") against order dated 24.3.2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of goods was paid by the said firm, but on the excise duty so paid MODVAT Credit was claimed. The stand of the Revenue is that the duty paid was more than due and to that extent, credit could not be availed. The Adjudicating Authority required the Assessee to reverse the MODVAT Credit availed by it and also imposed penalty. On appeal, the said view was reversed. It was held that once the duty was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... credit of the same in the absence of any questionable conduct. Finding no material against both the respondents, revenue fails in both these appeals. Accordingly, both these appeals of the revenue are dismissed. In view of the above dismissal, cross objection in appeal No.3728 is also disposed." 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X