9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department gave the following requisite facts for disposal of the appeal. In this ease Modvat credit on certain inputs was allegedly taken irregularly in the month of September 1986 and RT-12 returns were filed alongwith the relevant extracts of RG 23A (Part II), from which the Supdt. came to know of the irregular payment of credit and made an endorsement on the RT-12 Return, pointing out the ineligibility and asking the respondents to pay the duty of Rs. 12,855.72. The assessment of RT-12 Returns and endorsement was made on 24-2-1987. It was also followed up by a show cause notice dated 2-4-1987 on the basis of which the demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. He contended that even taking the show cause notice date of 2-4-1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit was prescribed. All the same any demand which is required to be issued even under Rule 57(I) is to be within the statutory provision of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. He contended that Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act provides for recovery of the duty short paid, short levied etc. within a period of six months from the relevant date and the subsequent amendment to Rule 57(I) has made it clear that the relevant date for this purpose is only the date of credit and hence going by the date of taking the credit in the RG-23A (Part II) the show cause notice issued on 2-4-1987 is beyond a period of six months undoubtedly. He therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the department and confirm the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we have preferred to adopt this as the relevant date in the absence of any specific provision in Rule 57(I) itself. It is entirely a different matter, when the rule has been amended and it has been made self-contained. We have also taken this view in our Order No. 1101/89, dated 7-12-1989 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II v. Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. and we have no reasons to disagree with our earlier findings and take a different view at this stage. We also do not agree with the learned advocate that MODVAT credit is to be equated with refund and accordingly the relevant date is to be adopted, mainly because of the fact that under Rule 11B, refund has been specifically defined as those including rebate of duty of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
