9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The Applicant filed this Application for waiver of deposit of MODVAT Credit of Rs. 71,28,091/- under Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and equal amount of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The Department initiated proceedings against the Applicant on the ground that the Applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditional and in this situation, even if the goods had not suffered duty, the onus still continues to lie with the Department. In support, the Applicant have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Khalsa Charan Singh and Sons reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 379 (P & H), following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is in favour of the Department. The financial hardship has also to be seen. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SQL Star International Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 465 (AP). 5. Undisputedly, this is a case of deemed Credit, and the benefit can be denied only under the exceptional categories. Prima facie, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their support, that the goods are clearly non-duty paid. The Department's case rests only on the ground that the Notification No. 182/94, as amended, has not been complied with. As already discussed, the Department could not produce any evidence to show that the goods involved, did not suffer Central Excise Duty. In these circumstances, we find that the Applicant are able to make out a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
