9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no representation for the appellants despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and particularly considered the grounds of this appeal. I have also heard the learned DR. 2. It appears from the records that, in adjudication of a few show-cause notices, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed, against the party, a demand of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the Dy. Commissioner s order, the party once again approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter held against the party in respect of suo motu Modvat credit but vacated the penalty. The present appeal filed by the party is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority, the party took credit of equal amount in their Modvat account. This action was clearly illegal. In RG 23A Part II account, a manufacturer of excisable goods could take credit of duty paid on inputs. Any amount other than duty could not be so taken. I have already observed that the payment made under protest by the party by way of debit in PLA was treated, rightly so, as pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
