TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the assessee respondent had paid duty on 18-2-1999 which is sought to be reversed on the inputs utilised for the manufacture of goods on job work basis. Moreover, there is no finding concluding that the petitioner has committed any fraud or misrepresented or suppressed any facts. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised in the appeal are that M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of C.R. Steel strips falling under sub-heading 72.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rules 57C and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity 'the Rules') inasmuch as it had not reversed the Modvat credit of Rs. 4,10,296/- for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I of the Rules. 3. On the basis of the afore-mentioned facts it was considered that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rules 57C and 173G of the Rules because they had not reversed the modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of those finished goods which were cleared by them on job work basis nor they had submitted statement to the department as required under Board Circular No. 232/66/96/Cus., dated 25-7-1996. The department invoked the provisions of extended period as envisaged by Rule 57-I(ii) of the Rules to initiate action against the assessee-respondent. A show cause notice was issued on 7/9-4-1999 for recovery adjustment of Rs. 4,10,296/- which was considered as inadmissible credit availed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken credit on the impugned inputs by fraud, mis-representation, collusion etc., with an intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s G.S. Radiator (supra) no penalty is imposable upon them under Rule 57I(4). Accordingly penalty imposed upon the Appellants is set aside." 5. Tribunal has affirmed the afore-mentioned order and dismissed the appeal. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that there is no merit in this appeal because Rule 57-I(4) of the Rules postulates imposition of penalty equivalent to the duty in cases of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts etc. For ready reference, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, we are not impressed with the argument that the assessee-respondents are liable to suffer the imposition of penalty by paying amount equivalent to the duty recoverable. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Sigma Steel Tubes and another (CEA 26 of 2007 decided on 16-8-2007) [2007 (218) E.L.T. 657 (S.C.)] of which one us (M.M. Kumar, J.) is a member has the occasion to consider the provisions of Section 11A read with Section 11AC of the Act which is pari materia to the provisions of the Rule 57-I(iv) of the Rules. In that case also no finding with regard to fraud, wilful misstatement with an intention to evade duty etc. were recorded. The appeal filed by the department was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
