9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dismissing Appeal No. E/772/2002-NB(SM). 2. On 6th July, 1996, officers of Central Excise (Preventive) visited the factory premises of the Respondent. They were informed by the Respondent that it was engaged in the manufacture of PVC Compounds and availed Modvat credit in respect of inputs. 3. On checking the records and stocks of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By an order dated 12th February, 2002, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner but reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 49,357/- to Rs. 12,500/- on the ground that it was excessive, particularly since the entire amount of duty had already been debited by the Respondent. 6. Against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. It was found that none of these ingredients existed in this case. On the contrary, the Respondent admitted that it had made a mistake and had deposited the amount in dispute on the same day. It was, therefore, held that there was no case made out for the levy of any penalty whatsoever. However, since the Respondent had not challenged the levy of penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o doubt that the moment the Respondent's lapse was brought to its notice, it debited the Modvat credit without wasting any time. In any case, in view of the categorical finding of the CEGAT that the earlier action of the Respondent was not mala fide, we do not think this would be an appropriate case to interfere with the view expressed by the CEGAT. 11. Under the circumstances, the appeal is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
