9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under cover of challan and supported by Certificate issued by the Range Superintendent. During the audit, an objection was raised that the rejects could not be considered inputs and were not covered under the declaration filed and hence, show cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 1-8-1988 was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise raising demand for Rs. 12,750/-. The Appellants contested the same and on passing the Order-in-Original, dated 17-9-1988, they preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who vide order dated 6-5-1990 set aside the said order holding that because the demand raised was beyond the normal period of limitation, and hence, issue of Show Cause Notice by the Superintendent and adjudication by the Asst. Collector were both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ex-facie indicate that the credit taken is in relation to the rejected goods taken as the inputs and even in RG 23A, Parts I and II a casual reference to the certificate from the Range Superintendent is made without specifying that the same was for the goods rejected. In his submission, there was thus a clear design to misguide the authority. The ld. SDR has pleaded that it was required of the Appellants to clearly mention about credit having been taken on the rejected material. Referring to the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Rules, the ld. SDR has pleaded that the act of the Appellants would tantamount to mis-statement because the entry made is ambiguous. In his submission the subsequent notice has to be taken as issued in continuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he RT 12 returns are meant to be scrutinised and the officers approving the same are expected to do so and if they fail to do so, it may not be taken as an excuse and then invoke the extended period to raise the demand. 8. Rule 57-I of the Rules provides for invoking extended period, if there is any mis-statement, collusion or suppression. There is no allegation of any collusion, the appellants, having produced the documents, could not be alleged to have suppressed the fact. For mis-statement, there should be some overt act committed by the Assessee. The dictum suggestio falsi should stand attracted. There is no such suggestion alleged to have been made which has misled the department. 9. The Appellants have taken credit on 28-7-1987 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
