9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the reasons indicated in the notice and proposing reversal of the Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules (for short, the Rules). The respondent resisted the notice. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand except in regard to a minor portion. Collector (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground of limitation except in regard to a minor portion. Department being aggrieved by the finding that the bulk of the claim is barred by limitation has filed this appeal. 2. Rule 57-I of the Rules deals with recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner. The rule as it existed prior to the amendment effective from 6-10-1988 enabled the proper officer, where credit of duty paid on inputs was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rule 57-I of the Rules, but that principles of natural justice should be read into the Rule and therefore, the show case notice within a reasonable time-frame will be necessary. 4. We are not in this case concerned with Modvat credit availed prior to 6-10-1988. The disputed Modvat credits in this case really were availed after 6-10-1988 and 16-3-1995. In Asia Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , Patna, 1993 (44) ECR 131 (Tribunal), Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Jagdamba Electronics, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) = 1994 (50) ECR 278 (Tribunal) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Delta Factors India (P) Ltd., 1997 (18) RLT 494 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that case of wrongful availing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the context of the original Rule 57-I of the Rules. 6. My attention is also invited to a decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Breaks India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1996 (15) RLT 68. The larger Bench which was required to consider a case which arose prior to 6-10-1988 held that though the original Rule did not postulate service of notice or period of limitation notice was required to be served within a reasonable time, which was held to be six months and five years, as the case may be, following the pattern of Section 11A of the Act. It was further held that the date of commencement of the period of limitation would be the date of filing RT 12 return. This decision, I would like to reiterate, was given i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
