9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cables Ltd. was a manufacturer of insulated electric wire and cable and J. Prakash Jain, manager of this assessee. Vinay Enterprises, of which Vinay Kumar Baid was the proprietor, and Maganbhai H. Dodia was the manager was engaged in the cutting of shorter length the galvanised wire that Uniflex Cables Ltd. received as raw material. A visit by the officers to the factory of Uniflex Cables Ltd. an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as provided in Rule 57F(3) had been obtained by Uniflex Cables Ltd. Duty was also demanded under Rule 9 on the seized goods. Modvat credit was also proposed to be denied on the quantity of strips found short. Adjudicating on the notice, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,134/-, demand for duty of Rs. 2,72,377/- on the seized goods and imposed penalties. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57F(3) was procedural. He cites the judgment of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa [1978 (2) E.L.T. J159] in support. 3. As the departmental representative points out this does not appear to be a simple case of failure to obtain permission in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(3). The inputs in question did not even enter the premises of Uniflex Cables Ltd. being sent directly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision is that credit should not be denied in such cases as is already been applied since credit had not been denied except in respect of inputs found short. However in principle, I find nothing wrong with the order of the Commissioner. The fact that 477 kgs. of the inputs were missing itself underlines the contention of his conclusion. I therefore find no justification for reduction of penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
