9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Appellants Shri S.R.Bhatti, Dy.Commissioner( A.R.) for Respondent Per : S.S.Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby modvat credit of Rs. 50,90,227/- is disallowed and penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs is imposed on the appellants. The demand is confirmed after denying credit of CVD paid in respect of 4 Bills of Entry. The goods were imported by M/s. Ashok Leyland, Madras. A show cause notice was issued for denying the credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the denial of credit and imposed penalty. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner(A). The Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2002 remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it verified that no refund of C.V.Duty has in fact been granted. In this case, neither its sister unit at Ennore has filed such declaration nor the appellant has filed such declaration to the Range Superintendent. The appellant is also silent as to whether its sister unit has availed modvat credit on the Bill of entries in question. Without having such declaration, claiming modvat credit is not justifiable because double benefit, by way of modvat credit and by way of refund of CVD by the Customs House can not be allowed. The case laws cited by Appellant are not relevant as the situation existing in this case as discussed above, has not been examined by the appellate authorities. Therefore, I am no inclined to allow modvat credit on thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants had not filed any duty draw back of CVD paid. In view of the same, the contention is that the denial of credit is not sustainable. 4. Revenue submitted that the at the time of passing of the impugned order, no evidence was before the Commissioner(Appeals) hence the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the appellant is silent as to whether its sister unit has availed modvat credit on the Bills of entry in question. Therefore, the demand is rightly made. 5. We find that the appellants produced evidence by way of certificate from the Range Supdt. that credit had not availed by the importing unit and also produced chartered accountant s certificate that the draw back of CVD has not been claimed by the importing unit. This evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
