9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are engaged in the manufacture of paper and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit on various inputs including packaging materials in terms of provisions of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Modvat credit availed by the appellants in respect of BOPP tapes, Hessian cloth and Wrappers. As per the facts on record that the appellants after a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not come back to the factory and was utilised in the cutting section itself, has been denied the benefit. Accordingly, the Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,56,357.00 and has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakh upon the appellants. 3. Shri S.C. Mohanty, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the inputs in question were admittedly used for wrapping of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of inputs which was received back in their factory after cutting etc. The provisions of Rule 57F(1) and 57F(3) required them to clear the inputs after following the procedure which has admittedly not been followed by them. The use of the packaging materials at a place other than a factory cannot result in admissibility of Modvat credit to the appellants. 5. I have considered the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. Ors. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Kanpur Ors. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (T) = RLT (LB-CEGAT) 1403 has held in paragraph 21 that .......No doubt, the modern Courts/Tribunal seek to cut down the technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r availing the Modvat credit, the same were cleared from the factory as such and used in cutting section of the appellants in another unit situated far away for the purposes of packing. As such, I do not find any merits in the appellants appeal and uphold the demand of duty. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of personal penalty is reduced to Rs. 35,000/-. But for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
