2002 (10) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. -  The notice issued to the appellant alleged wrong taking of Modvat credit by it on three counts - on parts of glass tube forming machinery which were exported along with this machinery without reversing the credit on the ground that they were not inputs; on a compressor and shrink wrapping....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a stand now on this question of fact that is completely contrary to the stand that was taken. The claim that the appellant took the stand that it did in the reply to the notice as a result of coercion of the departmental authorities is patently absurd. It is impossible to believe that the appellant's reply which, it is stated, was drafted by an advocate and dictated by any officer of the departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was supplied at the option of the customers to shrink wrap the bottles by use of the forming machine. It is clear despite this claim in the Rule 57G declaration that it is not a component of the glass forming machine, the fact that it may be used in conjunction with the machinery that the appellant manufacture it does not necessary render a part of that machine. We are therefore satisfied that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid on these parts was required to be reversed. The reversal that was made therefore was in order. 5. A penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed for having taken credit wrongly of Rs. 20 lakhs approx. Except with regard to the compressor and possibly on the shrink wrapping machinery with regard to which the appellant could have believed that it was an input, we do not find any ground for s....