9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heading 7603 for which they filed a classification list claiming benefit of Notification 151/86 dated 1-3-1986. The classification list was made effective from 15-10-1986. This Notification 151/86 prescribes two rates of duty in respect of aluminium wire rods, one at the rate of Rs. 258.50 per metric tonne in respect of those assessees who were not availing any credit of duty paid on the ingots or billets used in the manufacture of wire rods and the other at Rs. 2900/- per metric tonne for those who were availing modvat. The appellants filed a modvat declaration under Rule 57G on 15-10-1986 which was acknowledged by the Asstt. Collector s office on 27-11-1986. Meanwhile the appellants continued to clear their goods at the rate of Rs. 258.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember 1986 but he later on issued a corrigendum dated 15th March 1989 i.e. after one year of date of earlier order stating that the period of the demand should be treated as from 15th October 1986 to 31st December, 1986 and the amount of duty confirmed should be read as Rs. 11,88,017.38 instead of Rs. 6,23,753.29. This corrigendum extended the period of the demand by one month which was not part of the show cause notice and confirmed the demand for this period arbitrarily. The appellants replied to this corrigendum saying that this was null and void in law and endorsed a copy of this letter to Collector (Appeals) also. It is further noted that this corrigendum was issued after the appellants had already filed an appeal and hearing had alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) on the corrigendum, the demand should be payable for the period 27-11-1986 to 31-12-1986 and accordingly confirmed the demand for Rs. 5,64,264.09. The Asstt. Collector, however, admitted that the appellants had not taken any modvat credit during the months of October, November and December 1986. It is against this last order of the Asstt. Collector that the appellants have come up in appeal before me. 6. The appellants were heard in the matter on 12-5-1993 wherein they were represented by Shri M.V. Narsimhamurthy, Consultant and Shri S.S. Munot. Both in their appeal as well as at the time of written submissions the appellants forcefully submitted that once they have not taken the credit, the question of paying duty at the rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
