9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er chapter 8538.00 853200 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and avails Modvat credit under rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, on various inputs used in the manufacture of final products. They did not file declaration under rule 57G of Central Excise Rules in respect of inputs Aluminium Extruded Profiles, Aluminium flats and bars, Rod Pipes, and slab falling under chapter sub-heading 7604.30 and availed wrong Modvat credit for Rs. 2,54,433.29 (Rs. 2,43.891.25 BD + Rs. 10,542.04 SED) during the period from 22-4-1987 to 9-3-1990 as per Annexure A appended to show cause notice dated 28-4-1992. By not filing Modvat declaration the appellant suppressed the inputs usage from the department and kept in darkness. Credit availed on undeclared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (a) (bb) of Central Excise Rules. Hence this appeal. 2 Shri. S. J. Vyas, learned Chartered Accountant for appellant has argued that failure to file declaration amount to suppression is not at all discussed in the Impugned Order to invoke larger period of limitation. On the other hand by RT 12 returns, RG 23A Part 1 II and GPS department was aware of the inputs on which credit was taken. Failure to the declaration does not amount to suppression. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 339 - Para 5, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 812, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 134 Para 13, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 680 are cited. Shri Deepak Kumar learned JDR for Respondent has argued that Page 5 Para 2 of Impugned Order has clearly discussed and concluded about suppression, alleged in the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order in unnumbered para 2, the question of suppression and fraudulent practices is considered in not declaring the inputs on which credit was taken, and paid duty on final products without any reason for non-filing of declaration; credit is wrongly taken and misused. There is suppression of facts of taking credit on undeclared inputs; which lasted for long time, and it was a deliberate act. The contention of Appellant contrary to this cannot be upheld and it is rejected. 6. Now coming to the case laws, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 812 (T) in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Asia Insulated Wires in E/394/90 Order No. R460/92 dated 16-7-97 in RA 16/92, it is held in Paras 6 to 8 it is clearly held that Non inclusion of inputs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Para 4. 1997 (93) E.L.T. 134 (T) in the case of LVT products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, Para 13 - regarding demand Limitation - No finding of suppression of relevant of facts in the impugned order, hence proviso to Section 11A(i) of Central Excise Act not attracted does not help in this case, as appellant has based his case on RT 12 returns, assessment, which was enclosed with RG 23A extracts and duty paying documents. In Para 7 of the impugned order in Page 4 Collector (Appeals) has recorded the submission for appellant that "Section 11A is not available in this case in view of show cause notice on 24-5-90 covering 6 months prior to that on same ground was issued and they have forwarded copies of RG 23A Part I II and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
