9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 100/CEX/Demand/AC, dated 2-9-1997 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the Adjudicating Authority). 2. An application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount under the impugned order has also been filed by the appellant. 3. In this case the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his impugned order in which the credit contained in input final product lying on 16-3-1995 was disallowed and ordered for recovery under Rule 57-I. The appellant has filed appeal against the said order. 4. Personal hearing in the case was fixed on 28-7-1998 which was attended by Shri Ravi Holani, C.A. Shri K.G. Ladha. They reiterated the submissions already made in the appeal memo. It was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been held that the credits taken on inputs lying in stock can not be recovered on the day of withdrawal of the duty on finished product. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has cited the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the cases of, amongst others, (i) C.C.E. v. Wipro Information Technology - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 172 (Tribunal) (ii) C.C.E. v. Sunder Engineering Industries - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 452 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct became exempted, is recoverable in terms of Rule 57C or not. In this connection I have referred to the provisions of Rule 57C which reads as under :- No credit of specified duty paid on the inputs used [in the manufacture of a final product (other than those cleared either to a unit in a Free Trade Zone or to a hundred per cent Export Oriented Unit [or to a unit in an Electronic Hardware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is office in the case of Indira Enterprises, Nagpur reported in 1993 (69) E.L.T. 622 and I agree with the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the above case. 7. Besides the above the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also, as the last credit was taken in Feb., 1995 for which the demand, if any, should have been served on the notice on or before 4-9-1995. Wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
