9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants are challenging the imposition of penalty which has been confirmed in the Order-in-Appeal No. 20/2003, dated 24-1-2003. It is contended by the appellants that penalty is not imposable in the present case as admitted duty was paid five months before the issue of show cause notice and they rely on the following judgments :- (a) G.K. Steels (CBE) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng set under Rule 57Q despite same being physically not available in the premises. However, they reversed the credit five months before issue of show cause notice in view of the fact that Diesel Generating set which was not received by them. Therefore, issue of show cause notice much after the reversal demanding duty and penalty is not sustainable. The duty was not leviable in any case as it was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s order and pleaded for confirmation of penalty under Rule 173. 6. Ld. DR also submitted that the credit was taken in the year 1995 and in 1997 only, they reversed the credit, after the visit of the officers. 7. Ld. CA submitted that there was common premises between them and M/s. D. Engineering (P) Ltd., and with the consent of Electricity Board the DG set was installed in the premises of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., in terms of the permission granted by the Electricity Board. M/s. D. Engineering (P) Ltd. is stated to have not utilized the Modvat credit. For the purpose of imposing penalty under Rule 173Q, it is well laid down that intention to evade duty has to be established by Revenue. In the context of the judgments which are cited by the learned Chartered Accountant above, such an element of evasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
