9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,99,079/- which was paid by the appellants before passing of the adjudication order. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the capital goods on which they have availed Modvat credit and therefore, they are liable to pay the duty. He further submits that the appellants suppressed the fact of removal of goods with intent to evade payment of duty and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly imposed penalty. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that the appellant had contested the demand bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been sold as capital scrap and since the issue involved is one of the interpretation of rules, penalty is not imposable. In the present case, I find at the outset, the demand of duty is on the ground that scrap generated out of very old bought out items, on which Modvat credit was not availed by them. However, appellant paid the duty in order to avoid the legal complicity. In the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
