TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der]. Both stay application as well as the appeal are in respect of the order cited above imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. 2. Since the arguments covering both stay application as well as the appeal fall within a short compass, appeal itself was taken up for disposal, granting waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. 3. Following facts are not disputed. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture credit before installation of the Capital Goods. 4. Shri C.S. Lodha, the ld. Advocate for the appellants pleaded that during the material period, Rule 57T(3) allowed credit of duty paid on Capital Goods immediately on receipt of the goods subject furnishing the requisite declaration. These requirements have been complied with. Since it was a running concern, the credit taken was utilised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be done only by way of amendment carried out on 1-1-1996, the appellants cannot be blamed for taking credit and utilising it during the material period. Moreover, I find that the Commissioner s findings with regard to imposition of penalty itself indicate that the concept of Modvat credit for Capital Goods was new and there was no clear cut instructions on utilisation of Modvat credit during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
