9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under sub-heading 8714.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the notice dated 21-6-1990 the appellants were asked to show cause as to why Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 32,517.45 taken by them wrongly should not be recovered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why penal action should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules 57A, 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. On behalf of the appellants the learned advocate Shri Hari Om Arora appeared before us. He stated that the credit was being taken in Part-I of the RG-23A. Register on the basis of challans received from the supplier which was followed by actual receipt of the goods. He added that even though the credit entry for inputs was made in RG-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue the learned SDR Shri Rakesh Bhatia placed reliance on the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 4. We have examined the record of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the charge against the appellants was that they had been taking credit in the RG23-A Part-I register in respect of inputs used in their factory for the manufacture of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings of the Additional Collector that there was substantive compliance of the provisions of the Modvat scheme by the appellants and no duty was recoverable we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence if any was purely technical in nature. Under these circumstances on the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
