TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order]. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants herein filed a declaration on 27th March, 1986 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rishra Division (now Dunkuni Division) indicating therein inputs with chapter head under one column and output with chapter head under the second column. This declaration was duly acknowledged by the Supdt. (Tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed to be recovered from the appellants was Rs. 7,77,090/-. 1.4 On adjudication, the aforesaid amount of credit taken by them during the aforesaid period for different inputs was disallowed and since the said credit had been utilised, the appellants had been asked to pay that amount. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed on adjudication on the appellants. 1.5 On appeal, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedural deviation was in the knowledge of the department for the last six years. Consequently, I do not find that this is a fit case for recovery of Modvat credit even for the six months preceding the date of the show cause notice. 2.2 All that can be done by the Revenue is that they can enforce the proforma of declaration prospectively. So that the compliance with the procedure takes place in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee with the submission of the ld. Consultant and accept his undertaking. Therefore, the credit amount of Rs. 4,836/- shall be available to the appellants only when they produce the duty paying documents in respect of the said inputs namely, scrap of iron and steel. Otherwise, the credit to the aforesaid extent would be not admissible and they would have to pay the said amount by adjustment in PLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
