9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 27,687/- was disallowed and the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pistons, Piston pins, Piston rings. Appellants made an import of machines known as Master Cam Finish vide Bill of Entry date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ength of earlier invoice though the capital goods were exported after removal from the factory. Therefore, the invoice is not a valid duty paying documents as no capital goods were received against the said invoice. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. 5. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Rule 57-S provides that a manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no capital goods were received under that invoice, is not sustainable. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants had not followed the procedure laid down under Rule 57-S(7) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants cleared the goods under the invoice on payment of duty which does not show that the goods were removed for repair or re-conditioning. Therefore, taking of credit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shipping Bill dated 16-1-1998 for repair and re-import. The appellants paid duty in respect of the repair charges. These factual aspects are not denied by the Revenue. The only denial for the credit is that the invoice under which the goods were originally entered in the factory was not a valid duty paying documents for taking the credit as afresh after goods were received second time in the facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
