9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the rate of duty was not shown in the Challan by the consignor viz. SAIL. He allowed their appeal directing the Department to verify the correctness of the subsequent insertion of the rate of duty in the documents, observing that merely because the rate of duty was not inserted, the credit was not deniable, particularly when they had brought the inputs under cover of valid duty paying documents. In the appeal it is stated that in the two Delivery Challans-cum-Invoices the date - 27-10-1989 - is recorded. Thus 52.400 M.T. of Steel Slabs covered under these invoices are clearly recognisable to have suffered Central Excise duty @ Rs. 500.00 per Metric Tonne prevailing at that time. The effective rate on Steel Slabs became Rs. 600.00 per Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the arguments of Shri Dutt Majumder. His first submission was that in this case no show cause was issued. Only a remark was made in the RT-12. The only reason indicated in the said remark for the excess Modvat Credit alleged to have been availed is that the Consignor did not mention the rate of duty on Challans. The grounds advanced now in the appeal are fresh ones never included in the original decision of the Superintendent as per endorsement in the relative RT-12 return. Another point of attack on the appeal mounted by Shri Sinha, learned Counsel was that while the Superintendent had only referred to excess Modvat Credit of Rs. 5240/- (Basic Duty) and Rs. 262/- (Special Excise Duty) the appeal seeks the disallowance of the entire amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn for March, 1990 that excess Credit was availed by them but he did not allow the Credit. In the Order-in-Appeal there is no finding on this vital submission. Instead he had, while holding that it is not justified to deny the Credit merely because the rate of duty was not inserted in, allowed Modvat Credit availed by respondents after allowing the appeal subject to verification by the Central Excise Officers about the correctness of subsequent insertion of the rate of duty in the document. I find that the enquiry directed to be made by the Departmental Officers will become an irrelevant exercise in the light of the fact that no show cause notice has been issued in this case for the reversal of the alleged wrong availment of Modvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he filing of an appeal against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) does not serve the purpose of such a notice either. In the absence of a notice as required under Rule 57-I, neither the RT-12 remark made by the Superintendent which was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) nor the present appeal would justify the recovery of the amount stated in the RT-12 endorsement or the reversal of the Credit sought in the appeal before me. As observed by me earlier, when the Superintendent had merely made the endorsement in question without a notice having been issued either before or hereafter, the decision of the Collector (Appeals) directing the Central Excise Officers to verify the correctness of the rate of duty inserted in the document will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
