2000 (10) TMI 981 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of Modvat Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared without duty payment under Chapter X.
2. Invocation of longer period of limitation for demand raised beyond six months from relevant date.
3. Interpretation of statutory documents like C/List and RT-12 returns.
4. Application of Tribunal judgments on Modvat Credit availability and limitation period.
5. Double demands for the same goods and period.

Issue 1: The appeals involved the availability of Modvat Credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products cleared without duty payment under Chapter X. The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date. The appellant relied on conflicting judgments regarding Modvat Credit availability and reasonable belief formed based on those judgments. The respondent contended that the non-mention of clearance in statutory declarations justified the invocation of a longer limitation period.

Issue 2: The invocation of a longer period of limitation for demands raised beyond six months from the relevant date was contested. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred due to the delay in issuing the show-cause notice. The respondent emphasized the importance of statutory documents like C/List and RT-12 returns in justifying the longer limitation period.

Issue 3: The interpretation of statutory documents like C/List and RT-12 returns played a crucial role in determining the applicability of the longer limitation period. The appellant highlighted the significance of conflicting judgments and reasonable belief formed based on those judgments. The respondent, however, stressed the importance of accurate declarations in statutory documents to justify the invocation of a longer limitation period.

Issue 4: The application of Tribunal judgments on Modvat Credit availability and limitation period was central to the decision. The appellant referenced conflicting judgments to support their argument for a reasonable belief regarding Modvat Credit availability. The Tribunal considered the fluid state of the law before a decisive judgment and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the limitation period and Modvat Credit availability.

Issue 5: The presence of double demands for the same goods and period raised concerns. The Tribunal noted that demands for the same period were confirmed in subsequent orders, leading to double demands. The Tribunal concluded that the demands were barred by limitation based on the relevant dates for taking credit and settled law by the Larger Bench decision, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.