9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposing a penalty of Rs, 20,000/- on them under Rule 173Q. The said finding had been reached on the ground that they availed Modvat Credit in respect of their input. Paper, to the extent of the full duty amount paid thereon whereas such benefit was limited to only Rs. 880 per Metric Tonne. 2. Shri N.R. Das, learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the different RG 23A Part I and Part II statements which had been submitted by them along with their RT 12 returns. These had been checked by the Central Excise Officers and accepted. They had also submitted an application for transitional benefit in respect of their inputs in stock as on the date of their filing the Modvat declaration and the Assistant Collector had granted his permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. This Notification had restricted the MODVAT credit to the maximum extent of Rs. 800/- per M.T. But it is seen that the assessee took and continues to take MODVAT credit during the period from 6-10-1988 to 31-3-1990 to the extent of duty of excise both basic and special as shown in the relevant gate passes. It was obligatory on the part of the assessee to take the MODVAT credit only to the extent of Rs. 800/- per M.T. and not in excess of Rs. 800/- per M.T. The assessee, therefore, cannot take the plea that it was the duty of the department to detect short levy. The assessment done on the RT-12 by the department had related to the assessment of duty on the final product and not the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uppressed at all. It was fully reflected in the RG-23A Part I and Part II statements which they had submitted along with the RT 12 returns. Even in the application under Rule 57H for Modvat Credit for the inputs in stock at the time of filing the declaration, they had furnished the details. The Assistant Collector granted the permission to the full extent of credit applied for by them. The fact that they availed the benefit wrongly for a long period of time cannot lead to the conclusion that it was not a bona fide mistake. The longer period under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-I can be invoked only where credit had been taken on account of wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts on the part of the manufacturer. The fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (1)(bb) is attracted in this case. This renders a manufacturer who takes credit of duty in respect of inputs wrongly liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods in respect of which the contravention has been committed. Taking credit of duty under Rule 57A in excess of the permissible amount is taking credit wrongly, irrespective of whether they knew or had reason to believe was not permissible. Such a knowledge or belief is not an ingredient for attracting penalty under the first part of the said sub-rule which only refers to wrong taking of credit. The rest of the sub-rule is separated by the disjunctive or and the knowledge or reason to believe which are referred to later therein will not get attracted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
