9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. There is thus no justification for disallowing this credit and for restoration of penalty as proposed in the grounds of appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/516/2012 Cross-Objection No.ST/CO-119/2012 - A/86419-86420/17/STB - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri A B Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Shri Hemant Kanade, Advocate for the respondent Per: C J Mathew: Revenue is before us challenging order-in-appeal no.P-III/RS/124/2012 dated 12 th April 2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune - III which has upheld the order of the original authority confirming demand of ₹ 22,19,024/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives [2003 (158) ELT 130 (SC)] is not appropriate as that had been handed down in the context of a dispute pertaining to manufacturing activity, that the decision of the Tribunal in M/s HCL Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2010 (254) ELT 175 (Tri-Del)] as applied by the original authority should have been endorsed, and that the quashing of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act,1994 is contrary to the finding that the penalty is reduced to 25% of the demand confirmed. On these grounds of appeal we have heard Learned Authorised Representative at length. 4. The assessee has filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhilai Steel Plant [2010 (261) ELT 612 (Tri-Del)] and that in Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Meerut - I v. Modi Rubber Ltd [2000 (119) ELT 197 (Trib -LB)]. It is also his contention that with the payment of service tax and interest the provisions of section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 would apply to obviate the requirement to issue a show cause notice. Various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and of the Tribunal have been cited. That the circumstances in which the tax liability had not been discharged were such as to justify waiver of penalty under section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 is also submitted by Learned Counsel. 7. The primary issue to be decided by us is whether the ingredients necessary for invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to be allowed where the goods are declared as capital goods under Rule 57Q instead of as inputs under Rule 57A is also involved. We note that a similar question was considered by a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Devyani Beverages Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [1999 (33) RLT 73] wherein the Bench held that the declaration filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 57Q was sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on glass bottles which were inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A. We also hold similar view in the instant case and sustain the appellant's challenge against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying Modvat credit on the ground that the declaration was not in terms of Rule 57A. The appeal is, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
