2008 (10) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the adjudicating Commissioner. The denial of credit is on two counts. An amount of Rs. 1,24,55,573/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Three only) has been denied in respect of attested photocopy of bill of entry and credit of Rs. 45,86,664/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Four only) has been denied in respect of Guide Cars. 3. As regards the first issue, Shri Ravi Raghavan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant Public Sector Unit states that there is no doubt regarding duty paid nature of the goods, rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Public Sector Unit not following the prescribed procedure. However, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that had the procedure been followed and the Appellants had not taken credit suo motu on their own, the Department would have had no reason to deny the credit in the instant case. The Appellants surely deserve to be penalized for not following the prescribed procedure but denial of such a huge amount of credit which is otherwise admissible would be unduly harsh on the Appellants. Hence we hold that in this case, the duty credit on the basis of attested photocopy of the bill of entry is admissible. Consequently, we set aside the impugned demand of Rs. 1,24,55,573/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nally decided at the supplier's end holding the impugned goods to be falling under heading 86.03. He states that under the applicable rules in force at the relevant time goods falling under heading 86.03 were not eligible for capital goods credit and hence the Appellants have been rightly denied the same. He further states that Guide Car is a separate equipment and it is not a part of the Coke Oven Battery. 9. We have considered the arguments from both sides. We notice that the impugned goods have been re-classified at the supplier's end under heading 86.03 and the Appellants who received the goods cannot have a grievance that the goods have been sought to be re-classified at their end as that is not the case here. Under the Cenvat schem....