SRIRAM KAIYAUN MACHINE TOOLS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had taken Modvat credit of CVD of Rs. 1,58,469.50 on imported inputs in their RG -23A Part -II on 12.10.1999, At that time they had not filed any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Such a declaration was filed only on 28.10,1999. But by that time there was a delay of 16 days. Therefore, on 29.10.1999, the appellants had submitted an application for condonation of delay. The assessee did not utilise the credit taken. The department, by show -cause notice dated 1,2.2000, proposed to disallow the above credit under Rule 571 as also to impose penalty on the party under Rule 173Q for the alleged contravention of Rule 57G. In reply, the assessee stated that they had already filed a declaration and, therefore, there was no reason for denial of the Modvat credit on the ground of absence of declaration. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, who adjudicated the dispute, disallowed the Modvat credit, and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - under Rule I73Q on the ground that they had contravened the provisions of Rule 57G. In the appeal preferred by the aggrieved assessee against the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the Modvat credit by following the ratio of this Tribunal's decision in case of Greysham and Co. v. CCE, New Delhi , but did not interfere with the penalty imposed by the lower authority. The present appeal by the assessee is against the penalty. There is no cross objection in this appeal, nor any separate appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the Modvat credit.

(2.) EXAMINED the records and heard both sides.

(3.) SHRI V.K. Verma, JDR forcefully submits that no application for condonation of delay of Modvat declaration was actually submitted by the assessee. He has gone to the extent of submitting that the document at page No. 11 of the appeal file is not a genuine document. Ld. DR is of the view that, even after grant of the Modvat credit, the reason for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q subsists. He, therefore, urges that the appeal be rejected.