9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Calcutta have filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 50/Cal.III/99 dated 23-8-1999 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta which upheld the Order-in-Original No. 41/Demand/97 dated 6-11-1997 of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dum Dum Division, whereunder Modvat credit of Rs. 19,563/- (rounded off) was disallowed and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellants, submits that it is totally incorrect to allege that the appellants failed to file Modvat Declaration in respect of the inputs in question. He, however, admits that there is some variation in nomenclature of the inputs. He argues that such a variation in nomenclature should not be the ground for denial of the substantive benefit. In support, the ld. Advocate relies on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord to prove mala fides on the part of the appellants. He substantiates his plea by referring to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) wherein it was held that no penalty should be imposed for technical or venial breach of legal provisions. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Akbar B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the alleged infractions/violations noticed by the Revenue are purely technical and academic and not sufficient enough to form the basis for denial of Modvat credit. There is also no evidence on record to prove malafides on the part of the appellants and as such imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- shall be held to be not only improper but also unjustified. 7. For the reasons set out in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
