9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of heavy steel structurals falling for classification under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act at their factory at Bharatpur (Rajasthan). In addition, they are also engaged in the fabrication, erection and commissioning of various items of steel structurals at several site locations all over India. Once such activity pertains to execution of contract granted to the appellants by the Tanakpur Hydro Electric Project situated at Tanakpur District Nainital. The appellants had taken out a Central Excise license in 1988 for the activity at the above mentioned project site. For the purpose of Modvat credit on inputs such as iron and steel plates, etc., they filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral years and the papers cannot be located. His main argument is that the demand is barred by limitation and in this connection, he draws my attention to the correspondence exchanged between the department and the appellants clearly showing that the fact of availing of credit on inputs not declared viz. MS plates, pipes, angels and channels was very well within the knowledge of the department and further RT 12 returns also would show that the department had knowledge of taking of credit by the appellants on the above mentioned inputs which had not been declared in Rule 57G declaration. He therefore, submits that in view of the fact that right from 1989, the department had full knowledge of the action of the appellants of availing credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that the appellants were guilty of any suppression so as to make available the extended period of limitation to the department. The Tribunal has held that taking of credit having been noted through RG 23 Part I and Part II statements and RT returns, the extended period of limitation is not available to the department as there has been no suppression in such a situation. This view has been expressed in the case of Vikrant Televisions (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 339. This view has been followed subsequently. Following the ratio of the above appeal which applies on all fours to the facts in the present case, I hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to the department in this case and accordingly set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
