9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other items. They are availing the benefit of taking credit of duty paid on inputs and duty paid on capital goods under the Modvat scheme. The appellants claimed Modvat credit on certain items which the Department alleged that they are not entitled to Modvat credit on the items. The Department also found that though in respect of certain items, the quantity received in the factory was less than the quantity shown in the invoices. The appellants had taken credit on the full quantity. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri M.K. Sharma, ld. Counsel submits that most of the items on which Modvat credit has been denied are covered by one or the other decision of this Tribunal. He points out that Modvat credit has been denied on Therminol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 579. He submits that Ceramic Fibre Blankets are specifically covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Daga Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 313. 7. On the High Vaccum Cryogenic Container of Aluminium ld. Counsel submits that there are chemicals which are used in the Laboratory in the Research Development Wing. He submits that since chemicals are used for testing and testing equipment is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 534. Therefore Modvat credit is admissible on container of Aluminium. 8. On admissibility of Modvat credit on Dust Collection Bags ld. Counsel submits that these are items essential for checking air ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the decisions of this Tribunal, the appeal may be allowed. 10. Ld. DR Shri Mewa Singh submits that in so far as Cryogenic Container of Aluminium is concerned, this container is used only for containing chemicals which are used for testing, for quality etc. of the product. He, therefore, submits that this cannot be treated as a Modvatable item. Ld. DR submits that in so far as shortages are concerned, the explanation given by the appellants is not correct in-as-much as for comparing and calculation of the duty on shortage the items were converted into the same unit. He submits that nature of the goods already taken into consideration and therefore, the quantity short received will not be eligible for Modvat credit. 11. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , are not inclined to give any allowance for lose by natural causes in-as-much as on all petroleum products, volatile nature of the goods is taken into consideration while they are assessed to duty on it under the ASTM. 12. Therefore, having regard to these facts, we hold that excess credit taken on short quantity of LDO and furnace oil received will not be admissible to the appellants. 13. Levy of penalty under Section 11AC was also argued before us. Ld. Counsel submitted that there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts so as to attract penalty under Section 11AC. We find that this contention of the appellant is not supported by any evidence. In the instant case, the appellants nowhere indicated that the quantity of LDO and furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
