9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants the issue relates to the recovery of the Modvat credit amount of Rs. 26,693/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- from the appellants. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the demand is time barred and that the Rule 57-CC stood repealed on 1-7-2001 much before the issuance of the show cause notice dated 21-1-2003. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as such the extended period could not be invoked, is wholly mis-conceived. In those RT-12 returns, it was never disclosed that the appellants had reversed the Modvat credit on the material/inputs used in those goods or that they were not reversing the same. It is not a case where the duty demand has been raised on the clearances made by the appellants on the above said dates and that the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stwhile Rule stands protected by the provisions of Section 38-A of the Act and the same could be enforced against the appellants. The amount in question has been rightly demanded from them. 4. Lastly, the learned Counsel has contended that the penalty has been wrongly imposed as there was no intention to evade the duty. But this contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, discussed above, is not attracted to the case in hand. Similarly, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. SRF Ltd. 2004 (172) E.L.T. A134, that the clearances under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules or under the bond are not the same thing as clearance of the goods wholly exempt or goods chargeable to NIL rate of duty are not applicable to the case of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
