9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from 1-3-1985 to 16-3-1985, availed of the proforma credit of central excise duty on excisable goods under the permission granted to M/s. Polymer Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, which they were not entitled to. 2. Shri N.I. Mehta, the ld. Advocate for the appellants, advanced the arguments on two counts, firstly, the demand raised is time barred and secondly the declaration made by M/s. Polymer Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. and permission granted there under to the said Corporation was, without any further declaration, available to them and that they were, even under the law, authorised to take the proforma credit. Shri Mehta submitted that initially the appellants namely the Gujarat State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the appellant company, which was sanctioned by the Collector vide his letter dated 3-5-1985. Shri Mehta contended that all these letters as well as other correspondences produced on record indicated that the department was fully aware of the amalgamation and transfer of business with all the rights and liabilities of the Polymer Corpn. with the appellant company and as such there was no question of suppression. He admitted that the appellant company did not make a fresh declaration and obtained a fresh permission but that was under the assumption that as per the order of the Gujarat High Court, all the assets, rights and liabilities stood transferred by way of merger in the appellant company and hence there was no need to make any fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lymer Corpn. was also available to them. He also submitted that the fact that the appellants were availing of the proforma credit only under a declaration on the Polymer Corpn. came to light subsequently and hence the invocation of extended period was justified. 4. It is an undisputed position that the show cause notice is issued on 7-3-1989 and the demand is for the period from 1-3-1985 to 16-3-1985 and in that case, unless and until the department could bring the case within the purview of proviso to sub-sec (1) of Sec. 11A of the CESA, the extended period cannot be invoked. Considering the facts of correspondences exchanges between the appellants and the Department, it becomes clear that the department was fully aware of the amalgamati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
