TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the Modvat credit on the ground that the goods, in question, do not fall under the term of `capital goods . Penal action was also proposed for availing the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. However, he upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground of non-filing of the intimation in respect of capital goods and for delay in filing the RT 12 return. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the RT 12 return was not filed within time as there was some brievement in the family of the concerned official. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no infirmity in the impugned order in respect of the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 210. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld in this respect. 5. The benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods was actually denied on the ground that necessary intimation under Rule 57T was not filed in time before the Range Superintendent. In the impugned order, the Commissioner gave a specific finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
