9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, for the Respondents. [Order per : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal from the revenue bearing No. 1052/BD/446/86 dated 16-2-1987. 2. The only issue to be considered in the appeal from the revenue is whether the demands confirmed by the Asstt. Collector for the periods 1-11-1983 to 31-12-1983 covered by a show cause notice dated 17-1-1983 and another show cause notice dated 24-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hence there is a wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts justifying the extended period provided under sub-rule(5) of Rule 56A. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Asstt. Collector, the demands for duty were confirmed. The Collector (Appeals), however, agreed with the lower authority on the question that these two items are not covered by a valid permission but allowed the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions have been filed and verified by proper officer before the credit was taken in respect of the disputed inputs. It is also not disputed by him that these disputed inputs are otherwise eligible for proforma credit, since they fall under T.I. 68. The only objection is that they are not declared and no permission was granted. However, Shri Mondal would plead that verification of the D-3 declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only if this ingredient is present. No doubt, the officer who is verifying the D-3 declaration can choose to verify whether the inputs are covered by permission or not as submitted by Shri Mondal. But when such a verification, in the context of the Gate Pass being made available to the officer as early as in the year 1979, has not been done within a period of six months, the time limit allowed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
