9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)]. - The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide her order dated 23-5-1994, confirmed a demand on Rs. 1,51,924/- under Rule 57-I on the appellants and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on them under Rule 53Q (173Q). It is stated in the order that the party took Modvat credit on the invoices No. 48 and No. 49 both dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the appellant and Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR for the respondents. It is argued before me that the appellants had opted for availing the Modvat facility w.e.f. 17-5-1994. They were entitled to take credit on the inputs received after filing a declaration under Rule 57G. Further, Rule 57H provided for allowing credit on inputs lying in stock or contained in the finished goods on the date t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir contention has not been properly appreciated by the authorities below. They have, therefore, stated that they are entitled to the impugned amount of credit and there is no ground to impose a penalty of such a high amount 3. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. The case of the revenue is that the appellant had taken Modvat credit on the invoices No. 48 and 49 both da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has further recorded in her order that there is not only the difference of date relating to these invoices, even the signatures of the Sales Manager are fake. Hence the invoices on the strength of which the party took credit, were never issued by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Chandigarh. In view of these findings of the original authority, there does not seem to be any force in the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
