9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit and show cause notice was issued. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,54,687.32 under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) partly allowed their appeal by directing the Assistant Collector to consider the admissibility of Notification 198/86 in respect of PVC compound and benefit of notional credit of Rs. 15,271.27 and to give them the opportunity to submit duty paying documents which they claimed to have submitted earlier and grant them relief admissible as per law in the light of these decisions. The Assistant Collector s order was otherwise upheld by the Collector (Appeals). Aggrieved with the above order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for determination of the amount of demand after granting the admissible benefit as per the relevant rules in the light of his directions on certain issues. It is not known whether the Assistant Collector had already carried out such re-determination of the amount of demand in the light of the direction contained in the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals). In the arguments advanced before us on behalf of the appellants, the emphasis was only on legal questions the jurisdiction, time barred nature of the show cause notice. The arguments on the merits of the issue were confined to Notification 198/86 regarding PVC compound, the intermediate product made from duty paid inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515. We do not accept the plea raised by the learned counsel that the time limit will have to be reckoned in the manner laid down in Rule 57-I as amended from 6-10-1988. In the amended Rule 57-I, the notice has to be issued within six months from the date of such credit . This condition was not there when the notice was issued and it cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a notice issued earlier which was within the terms of the Rule as it existed or as it should be read and applied. The earlier credits had been taken in the month of May 1986. The department could have come to know about the credit having been taken only when the RT 12 return along with the accompanying RG 23A Part II statement showing the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even an allegation of suppression or misstatement etc. There is no merit in the stand taken in the appeal that the notice issued by the Superintendent was beyond jurisdiction. 5. A plea taken in take appeal justifying the credit taken for inputs received by them before filing the declaration is that Rule 57G does not restrict taking of credit only in respect of inputs received after filing of the declaration. It only lays down that credit can be taken only after filing the declaration. They have thus justified their taking of credits for inputs received even before their declaration. Such a view does not quite fit in with the fact that there is an express provision in the shape of Rule 57H as transitional provision. This rule authorises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
