TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri U. Raja Ram, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - M/s. Amrapali Industries Limited have filed the present appeals challenging confirmation of penalty against them by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order. 2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture texturise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their appeals. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that no penalty is imposable for a lapse which is purely procedural in nature; that the lapse of not filing the declaration under Rule 57G had occurred only because of their bona fide belief that permission for Proforma Credit having been granted, no further declarati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of benefit under both the scheme, namely, Proforma Credit and Modvat Credit was same and only name differed. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR, reiterated the findings as contained in both the Orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed by Revenue that the Appellants had filed an appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osing penalty as the Appellants had not filed Modvat declaration under Rule 57G. In similar situation, we find that this Tribunal in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Limited, supra, has held that "Both the type of schemes i.e. Proforma Credit and Modvat Credit allowed the assessees to take the credit of duty paid on inputs or the raw materials used in the manufacture of the final product. As ....