9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents. [Order]. - The appellants have filed appeal 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 appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and why the penalty should also be not imposed on them under 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) or of the order-in-original passed by the Asstt. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts for the lapse is not in any manner excessive or exorbitant. The Commissioner (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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
