9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit but reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- through impugned order dated 26-3-1999. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of metal containers. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rule 57-I read with Section 11A and Rule 173Q of the Rules. The appellants contested the validity of that notice by alleging that authentication of the invoices issued by the dealer, by the proper Central Excise Officer is only a procedural requirement and that they had received the goods on payment of proper duty and as such cannot be held responsible for the lapse omitted by the issuer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner disallowing Modvat credit to the appellants on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which it has been claimed were not properly authenticated by the competent officer of the Central Excise Department as required under Rule 57G(2)(h) of the Rules. He has only contended that authentication of the invoice under the said rule is only a formality and procedural matter and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10,000/-, as imposed by the Asstt. Commissioner to Rs. 5,000/-. The penalty has been imposed on the appellants in order to realise them of their lapse. The arguments of the Counsel that the appellants were not aware of the requirement of Rule 57G(2)(h) of the Rules cannot be made basis for interfering with the impugned order of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
