TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from the impugned Order-in-Original No. 51/96 dated 30-10-1996 by which the Commissioner has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 6,65,736/- on the allegation of irregularly availing Modvat credit under Rule 57-I(i) and (ii) of the C.E. Rules, read with Section 11A(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944. The amount has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were there and the CVD having been paid, there was no irregularity in taking Modvat credit. Their plea was that there cannot be two views on this matter and a different view expressed by the department is not correct in terms of Modvat Rules. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the pleas raised by them had been recorded up to Para 12, but no findings have been given and only a very cry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lment of Modvat credit is proved. I find that these facts were suppressed from the department and hence proviso to Section 11A(1) would be applicable to the case " He further submitted that there was no case for imposition of penalty as there was no provision for imposition of penalty to that equal extent of duty and also as there was no deliberate intention to take irregular Modvat credit, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of the goods, can be imposed. He further submitted that the appellants have already debited the amount by reversing the credit and they have made pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards penalty and as such penalty equal to the duty amount imposed is justified. 4. In counter the learned Counsel submitted that even at the time of grant of waiver of pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty, t....