2000 (3) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deletion of question No. 2 framed in the application. 1.2 After hearing both the sides, we allow the Misc. application. 2. The following questions of law are stated to have arisen out of the final order: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in arriving at the conclusion that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act is invokable in the present case; (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in sustaining the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs on the applicants? 3. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of understanding the scope of the Reference Application are that the applicants herein who a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bona fide belief based inter alia upon the letter dated 25-8-1994 issued to the assessees by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise stating that no modvat credit under Capital Goods heading is available on material handling equipment; learned Member (Technical) held that the assessees failed to prove ingredient of bona fide belief to entitle them to the benefit of limitation. 5. On the penalty aspect, while Member (Judicial) set aside the same, learned Member (Tech.) reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs. The difference between the two Members of the Original Bench was referred to the Third Member, who agreed with the learned Member (Tech.) that the demand was not barred by limitation and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was requir....