9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents were directed to reverse the MODVAT credit availed of by four show cause notices issued by the Supdt. under Rule 57(I) of the Rules. The particulars of the show cause notices are as below: Date of show cause notice Receipt of show cause notice Period covered Date of filing of RT-12 Returns 1. 15-12-86 16-12-86 June 86 8-7-86 2. 05-02-87 05-02-87 July 86 7-8-86 3. 18-02-87 18-02-87 Aug.86 10-9-86 4. 02-04-87 02-04-87 Sep.86 07-10-86 He contended that in all these cases, show cause notices have been issued within six months from the date of filing of RT-12 Retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant date is the date of taking of credit, which are different dates and not from the date of filing the RT-12 Returns and hence he pleaded that for the purpose of computing limitation laid down under Sec. 11A, the date of credit taken from the RG-23 is to be taken as relevant date. He also pleaded that it is in the nature of erroneous refund and hence the relevant date according to Sec. 11A is the date of such refund, which in this case is the date of taking the credit. In other words, he contended that the relevant date for the purpose of demand is the date of credit rather than the date of filing of RT-12 Returns. He however conceded that even taking the date of credit in some cases, the demand is within the time limit of six months a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through RT-12 Returns filed. We agree with the contention of the learned SDR, Shri K.M. Mondal, that in this case, the first opportunity provided to the department for noticing the short levy or irregular availment of credit is only through the RT-12 Returns. Accordingly, we hold that the relevant date even for the purpose of demanding irregular credit under Rule 57(I) is the date on which RT-12 Return is filed. The other argument advanced by the respondents is that the show cause notice is issued under Rule 57-I and not under Sec. 11A. This argument is only to be recorded for dismissal because the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that any demand raised under Rule 57-I is within the parameters laid down under Sec. 11A of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
