2012 (7) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tattoo (new design)/ Printed Transfers, during the period September, 2001 to August, 2002. The show cause notice issued on 03.10.02 alleged that the said Tattoos cannot be considered to be eligible Modvatable inputs. 2. It is seen that the show cause notice was dropped by the Commissioner vide his order dtd. 01.03.04 after laying down that the Modvat credit in respect of said Tattoos/Printed Transfers is available to the assessee. The said order of the Commissioner was appealed against by the Revenue before Tribunal. Tribunal vide its Final Order No.98/10-Ex, dtd. 24.02.10 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under :- 6. The point having been well settled there is no case for taking a different view in the matter i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled a reference application before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh raising the following questions of law:- (iii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct in imposing penalty on the appellants when the issue involved in the present case related to interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules. (iv) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct in imposing penalty on the appellants when the Department is its appeal before Tribunal had not challenged the non-imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. The said petition filed before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana stands disposed of vide their order dtd. 08.11.11. By taking note of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit in respect of disputed items was being represented by the respondents in the ER-1 returns. The said issue is a genuine issue of legal interpretation of the provisions of Modvat Rules. If the credit was being availed by reflecting the same in the statutory records and proper ER-1 returns were being filed, it cannot be said that there was any suppressions on mis-statement with any malafide intent on the part of the assessee, thus justifiably invoking penal provisions against them. 8. Apart from above, we also note that the dispute for the period prior to the period involved in the present appeal was also the subject matter of the earlier proceedings against assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No.259-260/CE/ C....