2005 (4) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. [Order]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter Heading No. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and during the relevant period, were availing the facility under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per their initial production capacity, the appellants were to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 5 Lakhs. During the period 2-2-19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of duty was confirmed. The proposal to impose the penalty was kept in abeyance. 3. Challenging the above orders. Shri S.P. Mathew ld. Advocate submits that on sanction of abatement claim they were entitled to have a credit in their PLA. The appellant's only mistake is that instead of awaiting for the abatement sanction, they took the credit suo motu and short paid duty to the same extent. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it the abatement to the extent of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs and on the other hand, he is liable to pay the duty of the same amount. No doubt that the appellant should not have adjusted the said amount suo-motto, for which they may invite penal action but there is no justification on demand of duty against them. The same is accordingly set aside. No penalty has been imposed in the present proceedings. In view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X