9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 2. Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant appeared for the Appellants. He explained that they had given a declaration, as required, under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These details were in general terms and not specific. They receive a large number of goods for their manufacturing needs and it was not possible to give the specific description of all their inputs. Moreover, the declaration was given by them on 19-3-1986 which was immediately after the introduction of the Modvat Scheme. The actual requirements were not known to the trade and there have been some deficiencies in the matter of giving declarations. Government had issued instructions that such deficiencies may be condoned. In their case, they had been submitti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly that the declaration given by them did not cover the inputs in question. Apart from the Aluminium Industries case relied upon by the Additional Collector in his order, there are other decisions also to the same effect. Thus, in Paro Food Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 332, the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal had held that the broad description Packaging Materials did not cover metal containers. Shri Mandal supported the order and pleaded that the Appeal be dismissed. 4. We have taken note of the submissions. We have perused the record. We find that the Additional Collector has come to the conclusion that the omission to declare the description of the inputs is nothing but suppression of fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n non-admissible inputs could not be noticed by the authorities on the basis of the facts on record as submitted by them, and such irregularity came to be noticed only by the Officers later on as a result of investigation and scrutiny of records not submitted by them. Further, the facts disclosed later on are such that their declaration at the appropriate stage would have entitled the Appellants to the credit and not otherwise. The charge of suppression would acquire meaning if it is found that they had availed modvat credit for non-admissible inputs by furnishing incomplete declaration which fact came to be discovered later on. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the longer period of limitation is not at all attracted in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
