9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Findings : The show cause notice itself records that : The appellant has admittedly submitted a letter dated 31-5-1999, requesting for Registration. The Range Officer has, vide letter dated 11-8-2000 (OC No. 1108/2000) clarified that in response to the May 1999 request of the appellant, the sector officers deputed had made an astounding discovery: That there existed no plant/machinery in the premises (Sought to be registered in May 1999) for manufacturing mineral water, and that a suggestion was made to the appellant (in 1999) to approach the Department for Registration, after obtaining the necessary plant and machinery. Subsequently, Registration has been granted to the Appellant, vide No. 7/2000 dated 8-8-2000. There is no findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999 that the Registration was to be taken, but only after crossing a turnover limit and after obtaining the plant and machinery , and not immediately (in 1999 itself). It is also pertinent to note that 1999, they did not place on record before the Department, the fact that they (appellant) were franchise holder of a brand for the mineral water intended to be manufactured in their premises. Therefore, the appellant s contention that they were ill-informed in 1999 and taking it forward to events in March 2000 is not sustainable. The delay in applying for a obtaining a registration in the year 2000 has not been satisfactorily explained by them. To this extent, and only this extent, the invocation of extended period is sustainable. Three tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and clearance of branded goods actually occurred from the premises without registration. Duty shall be paid on the clearances effect from 1-3-2000 to 7-8-2000 in full, along with interest as applicable under Section 11AB. Malafide Intention has not been established in this case, though it has been admitted that duty liability exists. Therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted and same is set aside. For non-Registration with effect from 1-3-2000, (purported date of manufacture and clearance of branded goods by them) they are liable for penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The individuals concerned have not been concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I therefore, find that the appellants are eligible to take Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods and discharge the duty liability calculated as directed supra. However, the interest and penalties shall be adjusted against the amounts already paid and the balances, if any refunded to the appellants. ORDER The impugned order is modified to the extent discussed above. Revenue in this appeal contend that the demands have to be confirmed for the period earlier to this also. They are challenging that the findings is not legal and proper. It is also submitted that the assessee is not eligible for Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods including the finding that they are eligible for treating price as cum duty. 2. We have heard lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
