TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants had taken Modvat credit of CVD of Rs. 1,58,469.50 on imported inputs in their RG 23A Part-II on 12-10-99. At that time they had not filed any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Such a declaration was filed only on 28-10-99. But, by that time, there was a delay of 16 days. Therefore, on 29-10-99, the appellants had subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority, the Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the Modvat credit by following the ratio of this Tribunal s decision in case of Greysham Co. v. CCE, New Delhi [1998 (99) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal)], but did not interfere with the penalty imposed by the lower authority. The present appeal by the assessee is against the penalty. There is no cross objection in this appeal, nor any separate appeal by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for condonation of delay of Modvat declaration was actually submitted by the assessee. He has gone to the extent of submitting that the document at page No. 11 of the appeal file is not a genuine document. Ld. DR is of the view that, even after grant of the Modvat credit, the reason for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q subsists. He, therefore, urges that the appeal be rejected. 5. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of delay on 29-10-99. This claim of the party has not been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has fairly noted that the delay of filing the declaration is only 16 days and that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration was filed late. This finding of the lower appellate authority is obviously one recorded in acceptance of the Modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
