9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions on 12-1-1988 and 14-7-1988 under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing Modvat credit of duty in respect of polythene printing ink, master batch and ethyl acetate to be used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, plastic filling sheets. In the classification lists filed by them from time to time they had also mentioned one more product, namely, flexible layflat tubing falling under sub-heading 3917.00 which is fully exempted from duty under Notification No. 14/92, dated 1-3-1992. Though, as per Rule 57C they were not to be allowed any credit of duty in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of this exempted product, during the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 they cleared 20,447 MT of flexible layflat tubing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such credit, they should have reversed the credit to the extent of Indothene used in the manufacture of layflat tubing as per the provisions of Rule 57C. He distinguished the decision of the Tribunal in the Premier Tyres case, supra, as in the Premier Tyres case there were common inputs for the same final product whereas in the instant case though, there were common inputs but there were different end-products, one of them being an, exempted from payment of duty. 6. Appearing for the appellants Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that they were not required to debit the credit to the extent it corresponded to the utilisation in the manufacture of exempted product since they had de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mis-statement. He also referred to the Apex Court decision in Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) and Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) which laid down that in order to make a demand for a period beyond six months, something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information was required to be established. Further, he also strongly urged that the Department had no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation alleging suppression, etc. on the basis of the very same documents which were filed before the Department and where the Department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
