9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents evidencing payment of duty on inputs such as copper wires, aluminium wire, PVC compound, steel strips and steel wires amounting to Rs. 1,44,820.66 during the period from March 86 to January 87 under cover of Government of India, Ministry of Finance Order No. B-22/5/86 TRU, dated 7-4-1986. Since the inputs were exempted from payment of duty, credit taken by the assessees was found to be inadmissible and the Assistant Collector disallowed credit to the extent of Rs. 1,16,623.82 on the ground that the exemption under Notification 208/83 (under which the inputs were cleared to the assessees) was conditional and clearance without payment of duty pre- supposes fulfilment of conditions laid down therein, that a perusal of the rela- ted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Wires : Here also the demand for the period from March 86 to August 86 is barred by limitation. For the remaining period, the duty involvement on steel strips for the period October 86 to January 87 is Rs. 1981.93 and for steel wires, the duty involvement for the period November 86 to January 87 is Rs. 757.73. The relevant invoices for purchase of these two inputs are found at pages 75 to 79 of the paper book which show that the inputs were purchased from M/s. Industrial Cables India Ltd. i.e. from a manufacturer of steel strips and wires. Since the assessees took credit on the basis of bills/invoices issued by the manufacturers and it was not a case of purchase from the open market, credit is not admissible in the absence of any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accompanied by a subsidiary certificate 261/86 dated 8-9-1986 in respect of duty paid on 3.00 MTs of PVC resin used in the manufacture of PVC compound and a further certificate of M/s. Beer Brothers to this effect (pages 34 to 41 of the paper book). Further, it is relevant to note that the Assistant Collector does not dispute the fact that the credit was taken on the strength of manufacturers duty paying documents, but he has denied the credit on a ground other than that alleged in the show cause notice and hence the learned Counsel is correct in contending that the denial is not justified because the adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Credit was rightly taken as per Notification 198/86-C.E. which provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
