9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the impugned order-in-original dated 29-1-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the recovery/reversal of the Modvat credit of Rs. 33,68,240/- under Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC read with Rule 173-Q, and demanded interest thereon on account of inadmissible Modvat credit availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -levied on them, initially. He has, however, submitted that penalty could be imposed for wrong availment of the Modvat credit, under Rule 173Q or Rule 57-I(4) of the Rules, but the same had not been invoked in the show cause notice. Therefore, the penalty as well as the interest demanded from the appellants under the said sections deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereon under Section 11AB of the Act. The impugned order of the Commissioner in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained and as such is set aside. The penalty equal to the credit amount as determined by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, could only be imposed under Rule 57-I(4) of the Rules. But the said rule had not been invoked and referred to for demanding the penalty in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
