2012 (4) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... department nor did they bring back the moulds and dies within the stipulated period. Hence, they are liable to pay duty equivalent to the credit taken - the appellant did not have any mala fide intention and the goods were still available with the job worker and, accordingly - Penalties are waived - Decided against Revenue.
Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Prabhakar, for the Department. Shri S.S. Gupta, for the Assessee. [Order]. - There are two appeals, one filed by the appellants and the other filed by the revenue against order-in-appeal No. 171/M-V/2002 dated 1-5-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. As both the appeals are arising out of a common order, they are being taken .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng with the procedures. Subsequently, after the strike was over, the moulds and dies were also brought back. Accordingly, he pleads for setting aside the demand confirmed against the appellant/assessee. 5. The ld. AR appearing for revenue, on the other hand, strongly argues for imposition of penalty on the assessee 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governed the manner of utilization of capital goods and credit allowed in respect of duty paid thereon. Sub-rule (8) to (10) of the Rule 57S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which are relevant for considering the issue reads as follows :- "8. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a manufacture .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der of the lower appellate authority confirming the demand cannot be faulted. 8. As regards the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay penalty, the lower appellate authority has observed that the appellant did not have any mala fide intention and the goods were still available with the job worker and, accordingly, he waived the penalties. I am in the agreement of the said findings of the lower appellate authority and I am of the view that penalty needs to be imposed when there is a deliberate defiance of law, which is not forthcoming in the instant case. Accordingly, I do not find any adequate ground for imposition of penalty as contended by the revenue. 9. In sum, I uphold the order passed by the lower appellate authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X