9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old machine. It is their contention that they also took trial production of 973 machined components by using the said imported Maxi Press. A certificate to this effect was issued by the General Manager (Works) of their factory. They therefore took modvat credit of Rs. 10,97,150/- in respect of countervailing duty paid on the said Maxi Press. As per their submission, it was found that all the diaphragms of the machine are completely cut circumferencialy. The appellants stated that they have exchanged extensive correspondence with the supplier of the machine for replacement of the machine/parts. It is their contention that since the machine was commissioned on 23-4-1999 inasmuch as they have taken trial production of 973 machined components, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions that the term installation carries a different technical meaning than the term commissioning . In any case the credit should have been restored after the machine has already been installed. They referred to the several decisions of the Tribunal in this regard. It was submitted that once receipt of the machine in their premises is not disputed, nor the nature of its duty paid character and duty paying documents then there was no case for imposition of penalty under Rule 57U(6) as they were under the bona fide impression that installation on trial basis would be sufficient compliance of Rule 57Q(2)(ii). 4. We have considered the submissions. We find that the chartered engineer s certificate very clearly states that Maxi Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been rightly disallowed. 5. As regards penalty, we find that the appellants not only took credit but also utilized the same before the date of the actual installation. Giving a false certificate regarding installation and trial production shows that their conduct throughout has been fraudulent. In view of this, the penalty imposed is justifiable and since under the provisions of Rule 57U(6) the penalty has to be equal to the duty evaded, there is no scope for reduction. 6. As regards the appellants claim regarding restoration of the credit once the machine has been installed, we find that the lower authorities have not denied such claim but have only advised the appellants to take this issue before the Deputy Commissioner who afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
