2000 (4) TMI 668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Footwear were covered by the Modvat credit scheme with effect from 1-3-87 when Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 was amended by Notification No. 83/87/- C.E., dated 1-3-87 and Chapter 64 of the Central Excise Tariff was included in the Table annexed to the said notification both under the heading "description of inputs" and under the heading "description of final products". The appellant filed Modvat declaration on 21-3-87 which was duly acknowledged by Assistant Collector on 27-3-87. The appellant filed an application on 31-3-87 requesting Assistant Collector to allow credit of duty paid on the inputs lying in stock at its factory on 1-3-87 and also on the inputs received during the period from 1-3-87 to 20-3-87. The said latte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 which was duly received on 22-4-87. Another letter was addressed to Assistant Collector specifically requesting him to accord permission to avail Modvat credit in respect of the said stock of inputs. By a letter dated 22-7-87, Superintendent of Central Excise required the appellant to re-submit the statements mentioning heading and sub-heading numbers of the inputs in question. This requirement was complied with on 30-7-87. The appellant filed photocopies of the relevant GP-1s before Superintendent of Central Excise on 24-11-87. Since the products manufactured by the appellants were both dutiable as well as exempted categories and the inputs were common, the appellant was only taking credit and was not utilising the same till grant of app....

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 appellant availed of credit without any permission from the authorities under Rule 57H ibid is factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant duly applied for permission and the appellant was duly allowed to avail of the credit the fact of which is evident by the endorsement of Superintendent in RG 23A Part II on 18-5-89. As regards imposition of penalty, the ld. advocate argues that the appellant did not do or omitted to do any act mentioned in Rule 173Q render himself liable to a penalty and as such no penalty could be imposed under the said rule. He finally prays for allowing the appeal with consequential relief. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities....