9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 19-12-2000 was served upon the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,68,803/- under the provision of erstwhile Rule 57AH of the Central Excise Rules, and imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The facts to leading to issuance of the said show cause notice were that the appellants had taken Central Excise credit on non-alloy Steel Ingots which were lying in balance as on 31-3-2000 in violation of Rules 57AB, 57AG and 57AK of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant claimed such credit of duty as admissible either under erstwhile Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under Notification No. 29/2000/C.E./Non-tariff, dated 31-3-2000. The issue was raised in the above show cause notice was dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party has correctly taken the deemed credit and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that benefit of Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.) was not available to the appellant as has correctly been held by the Adjudicating Authority. The Consultant further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.) was not available to the appellant as the appellant has failed to produce any evidence so far that the payment has been made directly to the manufacturer of the said inputs by cheque drawn on his own account or by bank draft or by banker s cheque. He submits that there is no such allegation in the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deemed duty so determined. This shows that the credit which would be available to the assessee under the said Notification would be at the rate of 12% of the price and not the actual duty paid on the inputs. [paras 4, 5]. In view of this, he submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) be set aside and their appeal be allowed. 6. Heard Shri A. Raha, ld. SDR who supports the impugned order. 7. I have heard both the sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order has observed that benefit under Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-3-2000 is not available to the Appellant as the said input namely non-alloy Steel Ingots are received prior to 1-4-2000. I find that the interpretation of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
