9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e business of manufacturing automobile components for supply to the manufacturers of Automobiles falling under sub-heading No. 8708.00 and parts of harvesting combine and parts of agricultural implements falling under sub-heading No. 8433 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacturing these goods, the applicant used Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Flat products (HR/CR sheets) as specified by their customer. The Central Excise Department initiated investigations in November, 1999 on the credits availed by the applicant since October, 1994 and as a consequence of these investigations, a show cause notice was issued on 4-4-2000 proposing denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 17,30,315/- availed during the period January, 1995 to April, 1999 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000. The applicants requested for amendment of the earlier disclosure during the pendency of the proceedings and accepted full liability of Rs. 17,30,315/- as demanded in the show cause notice in question. The amount of Rs. 17,30,315/- was deposited by the applicant on 23-12-2000. 3. The applications were heard for final disposal on 19-3-2001 and 3-4-2001. During these hearings it was submitted by the applicants that they had willingly admitted the entire duty liability and the entire amount as demanded in the show cause notice has been paid by them. They have fully cooperated in the proceedings of the Commission and made full and true disclosure of their duty liability. In view of this, they prayed for immunity from prosecution unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly grant immunity to all the 3 applicants in this case from prosecution for any offence under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and from penal liability under the aforesaid Act and Rules made thereunder with respect to the case covered by these applications. 5. As regards their prayer for waiver of interest liability, we observe that this is a case where credit of duty has been wrongly availed with full intent to defraud the Revenue and utilise such inadmissible credits for discharging further duty liability. The applicants have consequently adjusted their duty liability on their finished products against inadmissible credits and thus cleared their products without discharging their correct liability. We are of the view that such undue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
