Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to reversal of MODVAT credit, interest and penalty under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in view of the date of the disputed transactions and the subsequent introduction of the penal and interest provisions.
Analysis: The credit was taken on the strength of invoices found to be fabricated, issued by a unit which had not carried on any manufacturing activity. The notice and adjudication were issued after the introduction of Rule 57-I(4) and Rule 57-I(5), and the High Court had already held that penalty under Rule 57-I(4) was mandatory and that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting penalty and interest merely because the rules came into force on 23-7-1996. The factual distinction suggested by the appellant did not displace the binding effect of that ruling, especially as the disputed notice and order were post-introduction of the provisions and the credit itself was inadmissible.
Conclusion: The appellant was liable to penalty and interest and the order-in-appeal was rightly upheld.