9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the original copy of the gate pass for the input is stamped to the effect that they are availing exemption under Notification 31/88, dated 1-3-1988 and the respondent has got no option to pay duty (that is determined according to law) on his volition and therefore the Modvat credit availed by the respondents amounting to Rs. 44,389.74 is required to be reversed. No declaration was filed in respect of the availment of the Modvat under GP 1 No. 8058, dated 19-11-1992. Show cause notice was issued on 3-5-1993 against the respondent calling upon him to explain why he wrongly availed Modvat credit and the amount and utilised should not be got reversed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 57(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n goods in question @ 5% but the supplier of the respondent had preferred to pay 15% of the duty to the respondent and some other manufacturers and this dual charging of duty on the same product is not correct, which violates the Trade Notice No. 12/91, dated 8-2-1991. The excess payment is only a deposit and Modvat credit is not available on it. Under Rule 57A if the input is exempted either partially or fully from duty under notification issued no credit can normally be availed. The Supreme Court has upheld the Board directions in the case of Jain Spinners Ltd. in paragraph 25 that the excess payment of the amount than the prescribed duty is only a deposit of money and not payment of duty. The learned Counsel for the respondent has conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty paying documents and the duty whether short paid or excess paid on inputs not relevant for the factory and the Excise authorities have no jurisdiction to re-assess the duty on inputs received, and 1995 (77) E.L.T. 341 - Rock Stone Industries v. C.C.E., Jaipur under Rule 2(xi), 57G and 173B of the Central Excise Rules. In para 10 of the said judgment it is held that before the classification of inputs for Modvat classification of goods is determinable by proper officer having jurisdiction over manufacturing factory and not by officer in charge of factory receiving the duty paid inputs under Modvat Scheme. Also perused the GP 1 Nos. 254 and 246 and RT 12 return of M/s. Pharma Chem Laboratories, Rajkot. 4. From the reply to the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
