1998 (7) TMI 366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh imposed against the second applicant, Shri Sunil Kumar Lohia who is the partner of the first applicant firm. 2. Arguing on the applications, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant submitted that the said duty has been confirmed against them on the basis of allegations and findings of clandestine removal of Acid Slurry and Spent Acid manufactured by them. He submitted that though the applicants have admitted before the authorities below that the said products have been removed by them without payment of duty and without reflecting the production in the statutory records, he submitted that there was certain calculation mistakes which were pointed out to the adjudicating authority. Apart from that, he s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the duty on the said inputs was, in fact, paid by the manufacturer of the same, has been produced before the adjudicating authority. He submits that it is admitted by the applicants that no account of either the raw-material or of the final product, has been maintained by them. As such, it is not possible for the Department to extend the Modvat credit to the applicants in the absence of any accountal of the inputs etc. 6. As regards the applicants' plea that the provisions of Section 11AC were not invokable, he submits that assuming for a second that the said provisions were not applicable for the period in question, the adjudicating authority is not debarred otherwise from imposing 100% penalty in such admitted case of clandes....