9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stroyed capital goods, appellant assessed duty liability and paid the same – Demand of credit is not justified X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,39,917/- in respect of capital goods. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 14.00 lakhs was also imposed. The said order of the Commissioner is now impugned before us 4. We have heard the id. Advocate Shri C.S. Lodha and Shri Bidhan Chandra, the Id. DR for the Revenue. 5. The id. Advocate does not dispute that the credit availed by them, in respect of inputs, is required to be reversed back, ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule (7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Appellants' contention is that they have complied with the condition of the said Rules, inasmuch as at the time of clearance of the damaged capital goods, they have assessed the duty liability on the same and have paid the duty. There is no dispute about the above factual position. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view that denial of credit, originally taken by the appellant is not justified. We accordingly, set aside the demand for duty of Rs. 33,39,917/- confirmed by denying the credit in respect of capital goods and penalty of Rs. 14.00 lakhs. The demand of duty of Rs. 44,59,552/- relatable to Modvat credit in respect of inputs destroyed in the fire is, however, confirmed, as not contested. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
