9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal is against a penalty of Rs. 1,42,022/- imposed under Rule 57-I(4) and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department had found certain MODVAT credits on inputs have- been irregularly taken by the appellants during the period January 1994 to June 1998. But, before any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the penalty under Rule 57-I(4) for the period from 28-9-1996 on the ground that the party had contravened Rules 57A, 57F and 57G with intent to evade payment of duty punishable under Rule 57I. Learned counsel points out that the requisite ingredients for a penalty under Rule 571(4) were not alleged in the show-cause notice. We have heard the learned SDR also, who reiterates the findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as alleged that the assessee had contravened Rules 57A, 57F and 57G with intent to evade payment of duty. "Contravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty" was one of the grounds under Rule 57-I(4) to impose penalty on a person who had irregularly availed MODVAT credit on inputs. We find that Rule 173Q was also invoked in the operative part of the show-cause notice but without any spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at wrong availment of MODVAT credit on inputs is an admitted fact. The only question which remains to be considered is whether it was done with "intent to evade payment of duty." In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the show-cause notice did not allege any facts to establish "intention for evading payment of duty". It is submitted that the company was paying duty of Rs.3,12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
