9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cles and they received as inputs various parts from different manufacturers. They also get some job work done from the job workers in terms of Rule 57F(2) under Central Excise and Salt Act. 3. The Learned Advocate Shri. R. Raghavan for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants had taken Modvat credit in respect of both the components and other consumer goods which were declared as inputs under Rule [57G] of the Central Excise [Rules, 1944]. 4. The Learned advocate for the appellants has pleaded that some of the components which were taken into use were found defective on the assembly line and they raised debit notes on the suppliers in regard to the same. On a query from the Bench, he pleaded that these components since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their any evidence brought on record to show that the appellants had clandestinely removed the goods. He has pleaded that the appellants in good faith paid Rs. 17,69,753.94 towards the duty amount which came ultimately to be restricted to Rs. 16,73,332/- in terms of the impugned order. He has pleaded that by raising of debit notes, the appellants squarely came on record that they were recovering these amounts, these amounts are recorded in the accounts and any time the authorities could have found out about the same. The appellants had no malafide intention. He pleaded that there could have been little more vigilence on the part of the employees and the authorities should have been informed about the raising of debit notes. This lack of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f some material sent to the job workers, we have not been given any satisfactory reason for raising the debit notes. It could be for some financial management. The question however that we have to consider is whether the appellants should have reimbursed to the Government the duty element recovered by them by way of debit notes as they had taken Modvat of duty on the goods in question. Inasmuch as, so far as the recovery of this amount is concerned, the appellants have paid this amount and the plea in respect of the same is also not been pressed before us, without going into the merits of the demand, we therefore uphold the demand as made. In regard to the levy of penalty, we observe that the appellants had recovered the duty element and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
