2003 (3) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 12-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,08,500/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, on the appellants. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants availed the Modvat credit of the above said amount on 30-6-99 in respect of the capital goods under Rule 57Q without any suppor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act or Rules framed thereunder, under which the re-credit of the Modvat credit could be taken suo motu by the appellants when earlier they had already debited the same. The Counsel has only referred to the case of Indo-American Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 797 wherein it has been observed that re-crediting of the amount could not be denied on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in February, 99. The argument of the Counsel that there is no provision in the Modvat Rules requiring permission for retaking of the credit, is wholly mis­conceived and cannot be accepted. Under the rules, for taking re-credit, prior permission of the jurisdictional A.C. is required. 5. In the light of the discussions made above, in my view, re-credit of the disputed amount has been rightly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X