9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taraman, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Bidhan Chandran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-VI. In the impugned order the Commissioner dis-allowed Modvat credit for Rs. 1,54,737/- under Rule 57-I read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Demanded interest under Rule 57-I, imposed an equal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landestinely removed finished goods, the duty on such alleged removals was worked out to be Rs. 24,97,950/-. The Commissioner however dropped this demand as he held that there was no clandestine removal. The show cause notice also alleged that finished products valued at Rs. 1,87,250/- were not accounted and therefore were liable to confiscation. The Commissioner however, unconditionally released ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound short. I observe that in para 53 of the impugned order, the Commissioner stated the assessee have certainly failed to account for the inputs as required under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 . He nevertheless says that the appellants admitted that in respect of some of the inputs, which were issued from store room to production shop for use in the manufacture of the finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improper accounting a penalty could be imposed but duty cannot be demanded. Non-accountal is an offence under the Central Excise Act and Rules for which an appropriate penalty can be imposed. In the impugned order the Commissioner demanded duty on the inputs event though his finding speaks of improper accounting. 5.In view of my observations above, I hold that the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is not im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
