9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red without payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 186/75-CE. and supplied to Santa Cruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (in short SEEPZ). The Department issued five show cause-cum-demand notices proposing to recover central excise duty on the ground that proforma credit of duty on the raw materials and component parts used in those finished products was not available to them and the same was taken irregularly. The appellants herein contended that the restriction contained in the first proviso to Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules would attract only if the notified goods falling under Tariff Item 29-A had been exempted as a class from the whole of Central Excise duty leviable thereon or were chargeable to NIL rate of duty. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Rule 56A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, there is nothing to justify the demands for duty. He has relied upon this Tribunals decision reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 172 (Trib.). He has also stated that assuming, but not admitting that duty is payable, the time-limit for demand should run from the date of taking the proforma credit. It should not run backward from the date of show cause notice. 3. Smt. Chaturvedi, S.D.R. has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the Order-in-Original. She has argued that the assessee had taken credit himself and hence there was no error, omission or misconstruction on the part of an officer. She has supported the impugned order. 4. We have considered the records and the arguments of both sides. We obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial circumstances covered under proviso to Rule 56A(5)(i). It is also found that the availment of the proforma credit on the inputs which gone in for the manufacture of air-conditioners supplied by the appellants to Free Trade Zone was in the knowledge of the Department and as such the availment of the proforma credit was to be treated as having occurred on account of error/omission on the part of the Department to which the appellant has not contributed by any deliberate mischief. In the absence of special circumstances warranting the invoking of the extended period, having brought out the demands for the period beyond 6 months are hit by limitation and could not have been confirmed." No materials have been produced before us to rebut th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
