9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant manufactures goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.36 and Heading 85.38. They are availing of Modvat credit facility under erstwhile Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per Rule 57R(8) of the said Rules, no Modvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representing the duty paid on it. The appellant however claimed such depreciation and that is the reason why the demand was made on the credit availed by the appellant. It is the department's contention that the Superintendent of Central Excise had taken acknowledgement from the appellant to the effect that such Modvat claim is not taken. On 1-7-1997 the appellant informed the Range Office that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even if there is a wilful suppression of information and mis-statements of facts with intention to evade duty, the provisions of Section 11AC indicate that if duties and interest charges are paid within 30 days of the communication of the order of Central Excise officer determining such duty, amount of penalty to be paid by such person shall be 25% of the duty so determined. This proviso was broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration by the appellant to the effect that they would not be claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, their contention that there was no intention to evade duty cannot be accepted in the light of the declaration made by the appellant. The appellant relied on the decision of Siemens Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VI [2002 (147) E.L.T. 988 (T)] and argued that when an assessee reverses the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of Section 11AC by which the penalty can be reduced 25% of the duty evaded. The Commissioner (Appeals) acted accordingly. The appellant has now taken a stand that no penalty is imposable. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the proviso to Section 11AC entries in the year 2000 and reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty sought to be evaded. I do not find any further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
