9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 63,905/- was denied and penalty was imposed on the ground that the supplier of inputs had not paid the duty in respect of the inputs received by the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were working under the Modvat credit and were availing the benefit of cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,15,273/- and appropriated the amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- already recovered during investigation and imposed penalties. The contention is that there is no finding or allegation that the appellants were involved in evasion of duty by the manufacturer of goods. The appellants paid the duty as per the invoice and goods received and availed the credit. As the major porti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated against the supplier of inputs, the demand has been confirmed vide order dated 19-5-2006 and out of Rs. 13 lakhs, Rs. 11,80,000/- has been recovered from the supplier of inputs. There is no evidence on record to show that the present appellant were party to the fraud or misrepresentation by the supplier of inputs. Therefore, as the major portion of duty has already been recovered from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
