2004 (10) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant manufactures goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.36 and Heading 85.38. They are availing of Modvat credit facility under erstwhile Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per Rule 57R(8) of the said Rules, no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal goods representing the duty paid on it. The appellant however claimed such depreciation and that is the reason why the demand was made on the credit availed by the appellant. It is the department's contention that the Superintendent of Central Excise had taken acknowledgement from the appellant to the effect that such Modvat claim is not taken. On 1-7-1997 the appellant informed the Range Offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (Appeals) that even if there is a wilful suppression of information and mis-statements of facts with intention to evade duty, the provisions of Section 11AC indicate that if duties and interest charges are paid within 30 days of the communication of the order of Central Excise officer determining such duty, amount of penalty to be paid by such person shall be 25% of the duty so determined. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that there is a declaration by the appellant to the effect that they would not be claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, their contention that there was no intention to evade duty cannot be accepted in the light of the declaration made by the appellant. The appellant relied on the decision of Siemens Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-VI [2002 (147) E.L.T. 988 (T)] and argued that when a....