2000 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order]. -  In this case the question involved is whether penalty can be imposed for wrongful availment or credit as barred by limitation. 2. Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3003.10 of the CETA, 1985 and was availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed simply because it is lawful to do so and in a case where the breach was purely technical in nature. The appeal also states that in the case of Cornerstone Brands Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 647, the Tribunal has held that where the Collector dropped the demand duty and the department has not filed any appeal the Tribunal has held that the invocation o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules namely Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules and demand was made of the duty of Rs. 60.95 lakhs and imposition of penalty under violation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Because of the inadequacy of the evidence the Collector dropped the demand of duty against which no appeal was filed by the Department. In view of the above facts the Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed. ....