9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. In Appeal No. 1729/95, amount of duty involved is Rs. 2,28,25,389.23 P and in Appeal No. 1730/95, the duty amount is Rs. 2,33,06,345.97 P. The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the above amounts. The above amounts have been sought to be recovered on the ground that the appellants had taken these amounts of credit beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulating Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad (Final Order No. A 963/96-NB, dated 22-3-1996) in support of his submission. His next submission that the notice issued in terms of Rule 57-I is barred by limitation since it has been issued beyond a period of six months from the date of taking credit and date of taking credit is relevant for computation of limitation under Rule 57-I. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able time is to be read into the rule and he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products reported in [1996 (84) E.L.T. 263 (Tribunal) = 1996 (64) ECR 424] and M.R.F. reported in [1996 (88) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal) = 1996 (64) ECR 378] to support his contention. Regarding the time bar aspect, he submits that the plea of time bar has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions of both the sides. We find prima facie that the show cause notice proceeds on the basis that the appellants have failed to take credit in time and the order of the Assistant Collector holds that since the inputs were received during 1989-1992, credit availed in 1993 was not admissible and the credit wrongly availed, is recoverable under Rule 57-I. Having regard to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
