TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the irregularity is in respect of non-declaration of the goods as being capital goods. The Department s contention is that the appellants have declared these goods as inputs, which in fact were not inputs. The appellants contention is that these structurals are used in the furnace of their factory. I find that the appellants have, in this case, not declared the goods correctly and it was for them to clearly indicate where these goods are used. They have not clearly indicated in the declaration that these goods are used in their furnace. Further, I find that the learned Commissioner has not clearly spelt out in the Order-in-Original whether he is denying the credit on the structurals or on CS Spoons. The whole Order see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODVAT Credit of Rs. 3,84,918.54 (Rupees three lakh eighty-four thousand nine hundred and eighteen and paise fifty-four) is wrong and un-sustainable. The appellants appeal to that extent is allowed. (iii) In respect of disallowance of the credit of Rs. 1,191.50 (Rupees one thousand one hundred and ninety-one and paise fifty), the appellants submit that they have already reversed the amount and are not challenging. Hence demand of this amount is upheld. (iv) Regarding the disallowance of MODVAT Credit of Rs. 1,76,811.40 (Rupees one lakh seventy-six thousand eight hundred and eleven and paise forty), the appellants have submitted two contentions as follows :- (a) In respect of the duty amount of Rs. 77,136.95 (Rupees seventy-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight hundred eleven and paise forty), the balance amount of Rs. 74,971.00 (Rupees seventy-four thousand nine hundred and seventy-one only) is disallowed to the appellants and the appeal to that extent is rejected. 2.2. As regards the interest on the amount of duty payable, I fine that the interest has been invoked by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Rule 57-I(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I find from the said Rules that the interest under Rule 57-I(5) can be invoked, only if the credit of duty paid on the inputs has been taken with intent to evade payment of duty. In this case, there is no allegation that there was any intention to evade payment of duty, hence the interest imposed under Rule 57-I(5) of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
