9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. 2. Briefly facts relevant to the dispute in this appeal are that the Company by the name of M/s. Indra Polyfab P. Ltd., a manufacturer of detergent powder, stood merged with M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. under the orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. At the time of merger, Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 6,35,398/- was available in the account of M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. It was lying unutilized in RG-23A, Part-II in the account of M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. After the merger, the appellants M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. wrote a letter dated 10-8-1994 addressed to Superintendent, Central Excise, Kharar Range, Ropar, informing the department about merger of the companies and requesting for sanction, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the show cause notice as well as submissions of the parties confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,35,398/- as an amount of wrongly availed credit by the appellants and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants. On other issues also the demand was confirmed which is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants preferred an appeal. The appellate authority quashed the other demand but the demand of Rs. 6,35,398/- was upheld. However, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the copy of the order of the adjudicating authority filed today, (correctness of which is not disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly utilized by the appellants. It is further submitted that non-filing of declaration under Rule 57H of Central Excise Valuation Rules is only a technical lapse which cannot be taken as an argument to deny the adjustments of Modvat credit by the new company which has come into existence. Ld. Counsel further submits that purpose of declaration under Rule 57H is only to keep the department informed about the new development and entitlement of new company to seek adjustment against the Modvat credit. The appellate authority, it is submitted, has lost sight of this fact and he has confirmed demand by taking hyper-technical views about non-filing of declaration under Rule 57H. As such it is submitted that impugned order is not sustainable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to adjust the Modvat credit available to the merged company against his production. Thus in our view, this is a case of purely a technical lapse. Had the appellants submitted the declaration, obviously, they would have been granted approval to adjust the Modvat credit available in the account of M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. Not only this, the appellants had intimated the department promptly about the merger, they obtained an amended registration certificate and they also wrote a letter on 14-10-1994 requesting that the declarations, classification lists, price declarations and other documents filed by M/s. Amar Polyfab P. Ltd. may be treated as the declarations/documents filed by M/s. Indra Polyfab P. Ltd. w.e.f. 12-10-1994. Though abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
