ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate, for the appellants states that the appellants have exported the input after some modification. The department has alleged that the inputs have not been used in the manufacture of finished goods and the same has been exported as such. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that under the Rules even the input can be exported as such with the condition that prior permission of the Commissioner should be taken for such export. He admits that the only contravention is that the export has been made with the prior permission of the departmental authorities but not with the prior permission of the Commissioner.
2. We have heard Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned JDR.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of records, we find that there is no dispute about that actual export having been made. Admittedly, the prior permission of the Commissioner has not been taken, for which same penal liability attaches to the appellants. However, there is no case for reversing duty credit amounting to Rs. 20,35,780/- and imposing an equal amount of penalty. Such action on the part of the Commissioner is not only unwarranted but is also a great disincentive to the export efforts of the appellants. As such, we set aside the impugned order as far as it relates to reversal of Modvat credit and demand of interest. As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we reduce the same from Rs. 20,35,780/- to Rs. 10,000/- only.
4. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.