TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri Pankaj Malik, learned C.A. submitted that in this case the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the ground that the appellants had availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 62,335/- without waiting for the acknowledgement of the declaration filed by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not sustainable on account of the fact that the demand issued for a period beyond 6 months on the grounds of suppression had been dropped by the Collector. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. H.M.M. Ltd., reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497. Shri Malik submitted that the factory had been lying closed since June, 1987 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the appellants had filed a declaration under Rule 57G(1). The only allegation was that they had started availing Modvat credit in respect of the declared inputs without waiting for the acknowledgement in respect of the said declaration. In the impugned order there is also a clear admission that the appellants were filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not contested the allegation that the duty payable on the goods is @ 10% ad valorem and not at 5% ad valorem as paid by them. The appellants have also not explained the shortage of 164.1 kgs. of DPC Copper Wire with reference to the RG-1 balance which was deducted by the Central Excise Officers. Under these circumstances I find that the order holding that the appellants were liable for penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
