TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. [Order]. - The appellant seeks dispensation of penalty of Rs. 4,86,979/- and of Rs. 1,03,699/-. 2. As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of syringes and parts thereof whereas the syringes are dutiable the parts are not. The appellant was availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of both the above products. The syringe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so paid by them is in excess of the quantum of 10% of the value of the goods. Accordingly he set aside the duty confirmation. However he upheld the penalty part on the ground that in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) the appellants have raised Central Excise Invoices showing payment of duty on the syringe parts, which were otherwise exempted, so as to enable their buyers to avail the Modvat credit. 5. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....second case the entire period is covered by the said rule, which was introduced with effect from 1-3-07. As such the penalty imposition under the said rule in the second case involving penalty of Rs. 1,03,699/- is justifiable. 7. Without going into the above contention raised by the learned DR, I find that the show cause notice proposed imposition of penalty under Rule 15. The adjudication order ....