9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants are challenging the order, dated 18-12-98 with reference to the imposition of penalty under Rule 57U(6). He said that inadvertently the appellants claimed depreciation and also claimed Modvat credit. This mistake was known to them only when the Department verified the records on 10-6-97 and on knowing the mistake the appellants have reversed the credit on their own on the very dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances, and in the absence of mens rea, the department was not justified in imposing the maximum penalty under Rule 57U(6). He also drew my attention to the finding portion of the authorities below that "irregular availment of credit of capital goods mentioned above has resulted in the overdrawal of the account to the extent of Rs. 50,898 during the month of April 96". Alternatively he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances and submissions made by both sides, I am of the view that some lenient view is called for with reference to the quantum of penalty. Taking into consideration that the party has reversed the credit on their own even before issue of show cause notice and the overdrawal amount did not exceed Rs. 50,898/- as stated by the party I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Radha Arun justified the action of the Department in levying the interest under 11AB relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roche Products Ltd. reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 194 (S.C.). Sh. P.C. Anand submitted that the decision relied upon by DR is not relevant to the issue involved here in this case. 5. On going through the submission made with reference to the facts, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
