9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as the `Act ), praying for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,80,363/- and penalty amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and for staying the recovery thereof pending disposal of their appeal. 2. The stay application was heard on 27-1-1995 when Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri Somesh Arora, JDR represented the revenue. 3. Shri Praveen Sharma, the learned Advocate stated that the order-in-original dated 13-7-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut disposed of five Show Cause Notices including the one issued to them which is dated 28-3-1994 in the present proceedings, for the period 20-3-1990 to 31-3-1992. The applicant were Noticee No. 5 in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-4-1988 issued under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules ). He had held in para 12 at page 8 of his order that there is evidence that the noticee No. 5 had suppressed the facts . It is also seen that the stay applications of the other four noticees to the proceedings were disposed of on the issue of limitation, and other merits of the matter had not been touched. But in the facts of the case this itself does not appear to be enough to reject their stay application. 6. While on the question of limitation, the adjudicating authority had distinguished the case of the present applicant, it is seen that he had demanded Excise duty from all the four noticees under proviso to Section 11A of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough as stated above, the duty as such has been paid as flat (which attract higher duty). At the same time it is seen that the purchasers of the inputs had not availed of Modvat credit. The adjudicating authority while conceding that the purchasers of the inputs (appellants before us) were eligible for Modvat credit, had restricted the credit to the lower rate payable on `bars and not the duty actually paid as `flats . 7. Whether the inputs are `bars as held by the Tribunal earlier, or are `flats as contended by the assessees, is the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Although there is no stay, at this prima facie stage of the matter it may not be proper for us to go into this issue. Suffice it to say that for the purpose of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
