9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of CETA. They were availing of Modvat credit of goods used in the manufacture of their final product. Show cause notice was issued to them on 17-3-1992 covering the period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989 and the charges were that they had taken Modvat on inputs which had not been included in the declaration for Modvat purposes under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. A statement was given by the appellant D.J. Vora, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of the company on 9-1-1991 and 11-2-1991 wherein inter alia he stated that the unit had filed this declaration for Modvat purposes under Rule 57G of the inputs by describing them in broad terms. The show cause notice sought to recover Modvat credit of Rs. 27,64,259/- and proposed penalty on the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present demand, the appellants have been maintaining RG-23A Part I. The earlier order of remand by the Tribunal was by its Order Nos. 635 636/93 WRB, dated 29-4-1993, wherein also the Tribunal while remanding, had observed that when the receipt of all the inputs are reflected in the RG-23A Part I and related gate passes which had been submitted to the department, the demand may also be hit by time bar. The learned Counsel further submitted in their case that the RT-12 returns for the period relevant in this appeal, have been in fact finalised and in some cases adjustment of duty has also been directed in assessment memorandum. Another point urged on limitation was that there is evidence of the records of the appellants having been aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988. The Trade Notice conveyed the Board s non-acceptance of the proposal to give broad description by way of chapter heading of the inputs. The learned DR further relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Asian Paints v. CCE - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 198 to argue that the furnishing of a specific declaration of inputs for purposes of Modvat credit is mandatory. It was also argued by the learned DR that when the declaration is not specific, it will amount to suppression. 4. We have duly considered the submissions. We find that the appellants have made out a case on limitation. The Tribunal s decision which they have relied upon is relevant and is of the very same appellant and for a period earlier to the one with which we are concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department that the duty paid nature of the inputs is in question or that their use in the final product is in doubt. The appellants have also cited decisions by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that where the audit has been conducted, it will be inadmissible to raise a demand invoking the longer period for recovery of duty. The Asian Paints decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR is more on the issue on merits of the case about the mandatory nature of the declaration under Rule 57G, whereas in this case we are still in the threshold situation whether the demand will be hit by limitation or not under Rule 57-I; thereafter only will arise the question of merits. In this view of the matter we are satisfied, as observed earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
