TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, for the Appellant. Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The applicant is a registered dealer under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In a number of Modvatable invoices issued by him he omitted to declare certain material particulars as required in terms of the proforma prescribed under Notifications 32/94 and 33/94 bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. We note that the order in the present case also fol­lows this stereotype. It is the second con­tention of Shri Patil that whereas Rule 173Q provides for penalty where intent to evade is manifest, it has not been shown that the failure of the present applicants to place on record some details had resulted in Modvat wrongly being taken by the final recipients of the goods. We observe th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is for imposition of penalty alone would not support the ground of limitation. The last point of Shri Patil was that for the invoices which are incomplete where the duty involved is about Rs. 16 lakhs the quantum of penalty is excessive. We find this point to have merit. We find that in spite of the prima facie merits in this application, the issue of the responsibility cast on the registered de....