9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit order than in force; (b) credit of Rs. 6,661.08 P. availed during the period March to September, 1987 has been denied on the ground that credit was taken on the strength of GP 1s which were not endorsed; (c) credit of Rs. 3,299.60 P. has been denied on the ground that this quantum of credit was taken on an item steel scrap which had not been declared by the appellants in April, 1987. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed by the lower authorities. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Pankaj Malik, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice has been issued beyond the statutory period of limitation of 6 months and the extended period is not available to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23-12-1988 for the period beyond 6 months has been signed by the Assistant Collector while the proper officer to issue notice invoking the extended period is the Collector, as evident from the Board's instructions dated 20-12-1988. He therefore, submits that the demand is without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside on this ground. 3. The learned DR Shri Sethi submits that since Rule 57-I does not prescribe that the Collector is the proper officer for the purpose of raising demands beyond the normal period of 6 months, there is no infirmity when the case has been adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise. As far as the argument on limitation is concerned, he reiterates the finding contained in the impugned order wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28/88 C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-10-1988 to provide for a time limit similar to that available under Rule 56A (5) (vi) for recovering Modvat credit wrongly availed by an assessee after issue of show cause notice by proper officer. Doubts have been raised whether the show cause notices under Rule 57-I for a period of 5 years should be issued by the Collector himself or by the respective adjudicating officers. It is observed that under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Collector himself is legally required to issue show cause notices in case of short levy of duty to suppression of facts, wilful mis-statement, collusion, etc. However, under the amended Rule 57-I show cause notices for wrong availment of Modvat credit can be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
