Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1990 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (2) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Appeal against order allowing respondents' appeal on the ground of time bar
- Determining relevant date for demand confirmation under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act
- Interpretation of Rule 57(I) in absence of prescribed time limit
- Consideration of MODVAT credit as equivalent to refund

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the respondents' appeal on the basis of time bar, setting aside the Assistant Collector's demand confirmation. The Department argued that the demand was within time as per Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, contending that the relevant date for detecting irregular credit was the filing date of RT-12 returns. However, the exact filing date was unknown. The respondents, represented by their advocate, opposed the Department's stance, asserting that the demand exceeded the six-month limit under Section 11A, considering the date of credit as the relevant date. They also argued that MODVAT credit should be treated as refund, altering the relevant date for demand confirmation.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, analyzed the situation where Rule 57(I) did not specify a time limit for demand issuance. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limit under Section 11A in the absence of specific rules. It highlighted the significance of the filing date of RT-12 returns as the crucial moment for detecting irregular credits, aligning with Section 11A's provisions. The Tribunal referenced a prior case to support its interpretation, emphasizing the relevance of the filing date in the absence of rule amendments. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the argument equating MODVAT credit to refund, distinguishing between the two concepts based on statutory definitions and recipient distinctions.

Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's plea for remand to ascertain the RT-12 return filing date and determine the timeliness of the show cause notice. The appeal was thus disposed of with the direction for further assessment based on the verified filing date to establish the demand's compliance with the statutory time limit.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates