TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was alleged by the department that appellant had availed the MODVAT credit of Rs. 2,63,509/- during the period from November 1994 to May 1995 on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Tara Re-rolling Mills, Tedesora, (M.P.). It was revealed that M/s. Tara Re-rolling Mills had neither received any raw material/input in their factory nor they had undertaken any manufacturing activity in their factory, but had shown the manufacture of large quantities of excisable goods in their factory and issued fabricated invoices to the appellant to facilitate them to avail in admissible MODVAT credit during the period November ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of these two items whole upholding the duty liability". This order was corrected vide Tribunal's Order No. M/198/WZB/2004-C-I dated 26-3-2004 correcting Rule 57F(5) to Rule 57-I(5). Against the said order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur have filed Central Excise Appeal No. 1/2004 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 30-8-2010 [2010 (259) E.L.T. 686 (Bom.)] has held as under :- "It is true that Rules 57-I(4) and 57-I(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which were brought into force with effect from 23-7-1996, would not have any retrospective effect. However, the said Rules would be prospectively applicable to the case of the assessee. This Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-1996. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed and the order-in-appeal restored. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the case papers and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, I find that the Tribunal in the order dated 4-7-2003 (supra) has set aside the interest and penalty accepting the plea of the appellant that the period under which the duty has been demanded is prior to 23-7-1996, date on which the new provisions of Rule 57-I(4) and 57-I(5) came into force. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raigad v. Fibre Foils Ltd. reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.) has held that penalty under Rule 57-I(4) is mandatory penalty. In th....