2007 (6) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mukhopadhaya, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 16/CEX/2006, dated 22-5-2006 by the company against the confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding reversal of Modvat credit on the clearance of duty paid inputs like LDO, OCT (Ortho Chloro Toluene) Chlorine (CL....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In the second de novo adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner on considering the representation made by the appellants reduced the amount of duty of Rs. 4,14,924/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are in appeal against this order. 4. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that under instructions, he is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit hence penalty rightly imposable. 6. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. As has been submitted by the ld. Consultant that they are not challenging the amount of duty involved in this case, confirmation of demand of Rs. 4,14,954/- against the appellants in the order-in-original is upheld. As regards the penalty imposed on the current appellants, I f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....modvat rules". 7. From the above reproduced portion of the order, it is very clear that the adjudicating authority, it seems, mis-read the provisions of Section 11AC. If the appellant has committed any error prior to 28-9-96, then no penalty is imposable on the appellants under Section 11AC, as the penal provisions under Section 11AC came into statute from that date. As regards the penalty....