9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides, I am of the view that the appeal not only merits to be admitted but also requires to be disposed of instantly. After granting waiver of pre-deposit of the interest and penalty amounts involved in this case, I proceed to deal with the appeal. 3. The appellants had taken Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 5,19,262/- on High Speed Diesel Oil (input) during the period December, 1997 to March, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner on 31-1-2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 5,19,262/- against the appellants under Rule 57-I, demanded interest on the duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. In the appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the lower authority's order by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal goods during the period December, 1997 to March, 1998, coming within the period covered by Section 112(1) of the Finance Act, stands squarely covered against the appellants by the above provisions. The only surviving questions in this case are in relation to interest and penalty. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 112 ibid provided for the recovery of any such credit of duty as barred un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Modvat credit within 30 days from the date of demand. Of course, the position would have been different, if the Revenue had issued a demand within 30 days from 12-5-2000. 6. Explanation to Section 112 of the Finance Act is clear enough. No assessee had any liability to pay penalty on the ground of irregular availment of Modvat credit on HSD oil for the period 16-3-95 to 12-5-2000. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
