9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the manufacture of goods on job work basis. Moreover, there is no finding concluding that the petitioner has committed any fraud or misrepresented or suppressed any facts. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised in the appeal are that M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of C.R. Steel strips falling under sub-heading 72.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rules 57C and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity 'the Rules') inasmuch as it had not reversed the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,10,296/- for the period commencing from 12-4-1994 to 12-4-1998 on the inputs which were used in, the manufacture of finished goods on j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Rules 57C and 173G of the Rules because they had not reversed the modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of those finished goods which were cleared by them on job work basis nor they had submitted statement to the department as required under Board Circular No. 232/66/96/Cus., dated 25-7-1996. The department invoked the provisions of extended period as envisaged by Rule 57-I(ii) of the Rules to initiate action against the assessee-respondent. A show cause notice was issued on 7/9-4-1999 for recovery adjustment of Rs. 4,10,296/- which was considered as inadmissible credit availed by the assessee-respondent in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57C of the Rules. It was also contemplated that penal action be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s G.S. Radiator (supra) no penalty is imposable upon them under Rule 57I(4). Accordingly penalty imposed upon the Appellants is set aside." 5. Tribunal has affirmed the afore-mentioned order and dismissed the appeal. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that there is no merit in this appeal because Rule 57-I(4) of the Rules postulates imposition of penalty equivalent to the duty in cases of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts etc. For ready reference, the afore-mentioned Rule is reproduced hereunder : "Rule 57- Recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner. (1) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts etc. such an act has to be done with the intention to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically held that in the show-cause notice issued on 9-4-1999 there was not even an allegation of fraudulent or wilful mis-statement or collusion with the intention to evade duty. Once there was no allegation, there was no question of any finding in that regard. Therefore, we are not impressed with the argument that the assessee-respondents are liable to suffer the imposition of penalty by paying amount equivalent to the duty recoverable. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Sigma Steel Tubes and another (CEA 26 of 2007 decided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
