9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for disallowing the credit is too flimsy and accordingly, I hold that the subject Modvat credit is admissible to the appellants. However, I also hold that the appellants should have approached the jurisdictional officers for accepting the rectified documents before taking the Modvat credit and to that extent, I hold that imposition of penalty on the appellants is justified and I uphold the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 173Q. The appellants filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who held as indicated above. 4. Arguing the case for the appellants Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, ld. Counsel submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the ground of disallowing credit was too flimsy and also that the subject Modvat credit is admissible to the appellants. Ld. Counsel submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was warranted. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. I note that the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reproduced above clearly held that disallowance of Modvat credit is too flimsy a ground and that the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit. Once this finding is rendered nothing remains for imposition of penalty inasmuch as not only Modvat credit was allowed but it was also held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
