2003 (3) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24-1-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original disallowing Modvat credit of Rs. 3,40,347.20 and imposing penalty of Rs. 35,000/- on them. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron/steel forgings. They had been availing the benefit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. Accordingly, a show cause notice was served on them for the recovery of the amount which they had availed illegally as Modvat credit and after getting their reply, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty as detailed above. That order of the Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. 3. No Counsel has come pres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Modvat credit. But this plea, in my view, has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. The bare perusal of Para 2 of the Notification 16/97 shows that the manufacturer is not entitled to avail the credit under Rule 57A on the specified goods, when he is enjoying the benefit of this Notification. The very availment of Modvat credit, has been prohibited under this Notification. For availing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X