9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Collector held that proforma credit availed in view of countervailing duty to the extent of Rs. 63,900/- is to be recovered from the appellants and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- on the appellants. 2. The case of the Department in brief is that in the course of annual stock-taking for the year 1974 conducted by the Central Excise Officers at the premises of appellants on 24-12-1974 and 31-12-1974 in respect of imported Rock Phosphates, it was noticed that a quantity of 900 M.T. was found short. The allegation of the Department is that as the said Rock Phosphate was not actually consumed in the manufacture of fertilizer within the factory under Rule 56A(3)(v) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, for which the appellants had availed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per eye estimation. He also pointed out that these facts were intimated by the appellants to the Central Excise authorities through their letter dated 23-12-1974. It was also stated that in pursuance of this letter the Officers visited the factory on 24-12-1974 and 31-12-1974 for stock-taking. It was also stated that the quantity of excess and shortage as aforesaid was found on eye estimation and not actual. He also contended that the shortage of 900 M.T. of Rock Phosphate was definitely attributed to the excess quantity of 2500 M.T. of Super Phosphate which was recorded in RG 1. He also contended that the demand is barred by limitation and that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that since the demand raised is under Rule 56(A)(3) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions : (1) 1986 (23) E.L.T. 357 - Zenith Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. (2) 1986 (26) E.L.T. 42 - Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. 7. In the Zenith Tin Works, the Bombay High Court held that the time limit under Rule 10 applies for such recoveries even prior to the introduction of this time limit by virtue of an amending Notification No. 224/76 on 14-8-1976. Here, in this case also, the period covered is prior to 14-8-1976 and that decision squarely applied to the facts of this case. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Premier Tyres Ltd. mentioned supra. This was also the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Government of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
