1998 (6) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith Mayur Shroff, Advocate and M/s. Willingdon & Associates, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Puri, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. -  The applications are for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty Rs. 1,26,11,564/- as wrongly availed Modvat credit besides penalty Rs. 30.00 lakhs on the applicant firm and Rs. 2.00 lakhs on its Additional Gener....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r saying that the applicants have not submitted RT 12 returns for period prior to March 1996; they had in fact submitted Nil RT 12 returns for that period and the question of maintaining RG 1 production account will arise only after factory starts production which was in the month of March 1996. The Commissioner's finding that storage tanks are not capital goods is also not correct in law, because....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssions made. We find that the applicants have made an application for registration on 6-12-1994 which has been returned to them but the deeming provisions in Rule 174 of the Rules has prima facie not been considered and dealt with in the impugned order; sub-rule 9 of Rule 174 laid down that proper officer shall grant registration certificate under the Rule within 30 days of the receipt of an appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case law cited by the applicant is appropriate to this case and prima facie the Commissioner conclusion runs contrary to the Tribunal decision. In these circumstances we hold it will be more appropriate and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order itself and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider afresh the whole issue in the light of the provisions of Rul....