JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which she has set aside the Order of the authorities below confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 88,130.13 by denying the MODVAT Credit and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 40,000.00.
2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue and Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant for the respondent firm, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a detailed Order discussing each and every invoice. The Revenue’s contentions in the Grounds of Appeal have been found to be either factually incorrect or legally lacking. It is seen than in respect of the Invoice No. 104772 dated 17.11.95, the Revenue has objected that the duty paying documents have not been mentioned in the said invoice and the quantum of duty is not reflected.
3. I have examined the said invoice and found the above objection to be factually wrong. Similarly, the objection raised by the Revenue in respect of some other invoices that in their declaration, the respondents have mentioned sub-heading 8406.00, whereas the correct sub-heading is 8406.90, does not carry much weight inasmuch as the Tariff Structure was changed in the Budget. Similarly, the small, technical and procedural objections raised by the Revenue in respect of the other invoices, are not worth-acceptance. Accordingly, I reject the Revenue’s appeal.
Dictated in the open court.