9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the corrigendum constituted a fresh notice. 3. Whether the time limit for issue of notice in Modvat cases starts from the date of receipt of the RT 12 return or the date of taking credit. 4. Whether it was permissible for the Appellants to take additional credit at a subsequent stage after taking deemed credit originally. Analysis: Issue 1: The main contention in this case was whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar appealed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the appeal by M/s. Konark Cylinders & Containers (P) Ltd. The Collector argued that the notice issued on 15-1-1990 was within the time limit based on the date of submission of the relevant monthly RT 12 return. However, the Respondents contended that a corrigendum dated 28-8-1990 changed the nature of the demand, making it a fresh notice and further time-barred. The Tribunal held that the notice was time-barred based on the date of taking credit, as per Rule 57-I, and upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. Issue 2: The argument regarding the corrigendum constituting a fresh notice was rejected by the Tribunal. Although the wrong Rule was initially quoted, the grounds were stated clearly in the original notice. Therefore, the corrigendum did not amount to a fresh notice, and the time bar had to be considered with reference to the original notice date. Issue 3: The Tribunal considered whether the time limit for issuing a notice in Modvat cases should start from the date of receipt of the RT 12 return or the date of taking credit. It was held that the time limit should be regulated with reference to the date of taking credit, as per the amended Rule 57-I. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date is that of taking credit, not the date of the Department's knowledge about it, and ruled in favor of applying the limitation strictly as per the express wording of the rule. Issue 4: The Tribunal addressed the question of whether it was permissible for the Appellants to take additional credit after initially taking deemed credit. It was argued that if duty-paying documents supported the additional credit, it should be allowed. The Tribunal stated that there was no provision excluding normal credit if deemed credit was already taken and emphasized that credit equal to the duty paid on inputs is permissible. The decision in Mysore Lac and Paint Works Ltd. was deemed irrelevant in this context, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the Department's appeal, emphasizing the strict application of the limitation period and the permissibility of taking additional credit supported by valid documents.
|
