9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium wire rods classifiable under Chapter 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22-2-1988 confirmed the demand for Rs. 6,73,753.29 for the period 15th October to 20th November 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gendum formed part of the original order and since there was no observation of the Collector (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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
