9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as one of the input on payment of duty and take the credit thereon for utilization of that credit towards payment of duty on brass circles and brass sheets. Such a declaration was made by them under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It, however, appears that the credit so taken by the appellant on zinc was partly utilised towards payment of duty on copper cathodes which was not permissible in terms of Rules 57F and 57G read with Rule 57A. A show-cause notice was, therefore, issued asking as to why an amount of Rs. 39,33,792.76 utilised by them wrongly during the period August, 1986 to April, 1988 be not reversed and recovered from them. The show cause notice was issued on 12-7-1991. 1.2 The appellant herein while admitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant should be entitled to the credit of an equal amount in RG-23A Part II; otherwise, it would mean a double payment of duty on the same product i.e. copper cathodes. It was, therefore, submitted before the adjudicating authority that the show-cause notice proceedings be dropped. However, the adjudicating authority did not accept the aforesaid pleas and confirmed the demand of duty of an amount of Rs. 39,33,792.76 and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence this Appeal before the Tribunal by the appellant herein. 1.3. Foregoing two submissions made by the appellant before the adjudicating authority have again been reiterated by the ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Banerjee before us, and he makes the same prayer for dropping th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the adjudicating authority to the effect that zinc has not been utilised in the manufacture of brass sheets and circles is without any basis or evidence. As regards the plea of time bar, ld. Advocate has submitted that it is apparent from the statement of allegations that this error on the part of the appellant was found by the department on the basis of scrutiny of the records submitted to the Revenue. It is, therefore, submitted by the ld. Advocate that the finding of show-cause notice not being time barred is apparently incorrect. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are not satisfied with the plea of the ld. Advocate for the appellant that in view of the submission of RT-12 returns and copies o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
