9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s took Modvat Credit on various steel products of Chapter 72 received from various stock-yards of M/s. S.A.I.L. on the strength of delivery challans issued by the stock-yards authorities. 2. The said delivery challans were accepted as duty paying documents by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as per the proviso 2 of Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In order to ascertain the date of payment of duty on the inputs in question by the integrated steel plants received by the appellant Company, a reference was made to various stock-yards authorities and on verification of the report received from such authorities it came to the notice of the Department that the inputs received by the appellants suffered duty on or before 31-1-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Superintendent for the availment of Modvat Credit. Since these facts were suppressed by the appellant Company, the longer time-limit is applicable to this case. 5. Replying the abovesaid contentions, the learned P.R. Biswas made a rejoinder and stated that the fact that the duty was paid prior to 31-1-1986 was not known to the appellants. Further, there was no suppression on the part of the appellants. There was also no wilful misstatement. In such circumstances, when the appellants acted bonafide the question of extending the permissible period does not arise on the facts of this case. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions :- (1) Aluminium Industries v. Collector -1990 (47) E.L.T. 28 (2) Paro Food Produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no such discussion also in the impugned order to justify the same. Hence the question of suppression does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. There is also no wilful misstatement. Wilful misstatement arises only when the appellants knowingly makes a false statement to the Department. It is not the case of the Department that the appellants knew that these inputs suffered duty prior to 31-1-1986 and knowing that fact fully well they had made a wilful misstatement. On the contrary, the appellant Company along with RT-12 returns had produced the duty paying documents, the delivery challans as also the extracts of RG-23A records. These records were scrutinised by the Central Excise Officers and they allowed the Modvat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
