9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amal Spinning & Weaving Mills, the respondent to this appeal, manufactured filament or staple fibre. It sent these fabrics for processing to processing houses. After receipt of the processed fabrics, it cut them into lengths as desired by the buyers, folded them and stamped the price and other particulars relating to the fabrics. While doing so, it took credit of the duty paid by the processor on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Excise and Customs. There is however no evidence produced in support of this claim. What is evident is that, the respondent continued to take credit and utilised the credit towards payment of duty till 9-3-1999. In the meantime, notices were being issued by the department to the respondent proposing to disallowance of the Modvat credit taken and demanding recovery of the credit that it applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabrics subjected to these processes, the respondent had utilised Modvat credit that it took in the payment of duty and therefore there was no question of starting this once again. As to the penalty, he passed an order which is somewhat ambiguous. He noted that the appellant before him has followed the advice of the Chief Commissioner and therefore acted as bona fide. In the absence of mala fide h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its representation by the Board. It however contends that this instruction was not communicated to the respondent because it was not correct. It is the contention that the Chief Commissioner was not the proper authority to deal with Modvat credit. The question however is not whether he was so capable or not. The point is that if he did give instructions the respondent could not be accused of being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
